Famous wars of the 20th century. Russia in the wars of the 20th century. Brief overview of local wars and armed conflicts

For almost three hundred years, the search has been ongoing for a universal way to resolve contradictions that arise between states, nations, nationalities, etc., without the use of armed violence.

But political declarations, treaties, conventions, negotiations on disarmament and the limitation of certain types of weapons only temporarily removed the immediate threat of destructive wars, but did not eliminate it completely.

Only after the end of World War II, more than 400 various clashes of so-called “local” significance, and more than 50 “major” local wars were recorded on the planet. More than 30 military conflicts annually - these are the real statistics of the last years of the 20th century. Since 1945, local wars and armed conflicts have claimed more than 30 million lives. Financially, the losses amounted to 10 trillion dollars - this is the price of human belligerence.

Local wars have always been an instrument of policy in many countries of the world and the global strategy of opposing world systems - capitalism and socialism, as well as their military organizations - NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

In the post-war period, more than ever before, an organic connection began to be felt between politics and diplomacy, on the one hand, and the military power of states, on the other, since peaceful means turned out to be good and effective only when they were based on a sufficient basis for the protection of the state and their interests military power.

During this period, the main thing for the USSR was the desire to participate in local wars and armed conflicts in the Middle East, Indochina, Central America, Central and South Africa, Asia and the Persian Gulf region, into which the United States and its allies were drawn in to strengthen own political, ideological and military influence in vast regions of the world.

It was during the Cold War that a series of military-political crises and local wars took place with the participation of domestic armed forces, which, under certain circumstances, could develop into a large-scale war.

Until recently, all responsibility for the emergence of local wars and armed conflicts (in the ideological coordinate system) was placed entirely on the aggressive nature of imperialism, and our interest in their course and outcome was carefully masked by declarations of selfless assistance to peoples fighting for their independence and self-determination.

So, the origin of the most common military conflicts unleashed after the Second World War is based on the economic rivalry of states in the international arena. Most other contradictions (political, geostrategic, etc.) turned out to be only derivatives of the primary feature, i.e., control over certain regions, their resources and labor. However, sometimes crises were caused by the claims of individual states to the role of “regional centers of power.”

A special type of military-political crisis includes regional, local wars and armed conflicts between state-formed parts of one nation, divided along political-ideological, socio-economic or religious lines (Korea, Vietnam, Yemen, modern Afghanistan, etc.) . However, their root cause is precisely the economic factor, and ethnic or religious factors are just a pretext.

A large number of military-political crises arose due to attempts by the leading countries of the world to retain in their sphere of influence states with which, before the crisis, they maintained colonial, dependent or allied relations.

One of the most common reasons that caused regional, local wars and armed conflicts after 1945 was the desire of national-ethnic communities for self-determination in various forms (from anti-colonial to separatist). The powerful growth of the national liberation movement in the colonies became possible after the sharp weakening of the colonial powers during and after the end of the Second World War. In turn, the crisis caused by the collapse of the world socialist system and the weakening influence of the USSR and then the Russian Federation led to the emergence of numerous nationalist (ethno-confessional) movements in the post-socialist and post-Soviet space.

A huge number of local conflicts that arose in the 90s of the 20th century pose a real danger of the possibility of a third world war. And it will be local-focal, permanent, asymmetrical, networked and, as the military says, non-contact.

As for the first sign of the third world war as a local focal point, we mean a long chain of local armed conflicts and local wars that will continue throughout the solution of the main task - mastery of the world. The commonality of these local wars, spaced from each other over a certain time interval, will be that they will all be subordinated to one single goal - mastery of the world.

Speaking about the specifics of the armed conflicts of the 1990s. -beginning of the 21st century, we can talk, among others, about their next fundamental point.

All conflicts developed in a relatively limited area within one theater of military operations, but with the use of forces and assets located outside it. However, conflicts that were essentially local were accompanied by great bitterness and resulted in a number of cases in the complete destruction of the state system (if there was one) of one of the parties to the conflict. The following table presents the main local conflicts of recent decades.

Table No. 1

Country, year.	Features of armed struggle, number of dead, people	results armed struggle
	The armed struggle was air, land and sea in nature. Conducting an air operation, widespread use of cruise missiles. Naval missile battle. Military operations using the latest weapons. Coalitional nature.	The Israeli Armed Forces completely defeated the Egyptian-Syrian troops and seized territory.
Argentina;	The armed struggle was mainly of a naval and land nature. The use of amphibious assaults. widespread use of indirect, non-contact and other (including non-traditional) forms and methods of action, long-range fire and electronic destruction. Active information warfare, disorientation of public opinion in individual states and the world community as a whole. 800	With the political support of the United States, Great Britain carried out a naval blockade of the territory
	The armed struggle was mainly aerial in nature, and command and control of troops was carried out mainly through space. High influence of information warfare in military operations. Coalition character, disorientation of public opinion in individual states and the world community as a whole.	Complete defeat of Iraqi forces in Kuwait.
India - Pakistan;	The armed struggle was mainly on the ground. Maneuverable actions of troops (forces) in isolated areas with the widespread use of airmobile forces, landing forces and special forces.	Defeat of the main forces of the opposing sides. Military goals have not been achieved.
Yugoslavia;	The armed struggle was mainly aerial in nature; troops were controlled through space. High influence of information warfare in military operations. Widespread use of indirect, non-contact and other (including non-traditional) forms and methods of action, long-range fire and electronic destruction; active information warfare, disorientation of public opinion in individual states and the world community as a whole. The desire to disorganize the system of state and military administration; the use of the latest highly effective (including those based on new physical principles) weapons systems and military equipment. The growing role of space reconnaissance.	The defeat of the troops of Yugoslavia, the complete disorganization of military and government administration.
Afghanistan;	The armed struggle was ground and air in nature with the widespread use of special operations forces. High influence of information warfare in military operations. Coalitional nature. Troop control was carried out mainly through space. The growing role of space reconnaissance.	The main Taliban forces have been destroyed.
	The armed struggle was mainly air-ground in nature, with troops controlled through space. High influence of information warfare in military operations. Coalitional nature. The growing role of space reconnaissance. Widespread use of indirect, non-contact and other (including non-traditional) forms and methods of action, long-range fire and electronic destruction; active information warfare, disorientation of public opinion in individual states and the world community as a whole; maneuverable actions of troops (forces) in isolated directions with the widespread use of airborne forces, landing forces and special forces.	Complete defeat of the Iraqi Armed Forces. Change of political power.

After World War II, for a number of reasons, one of which was the emergence of nuclear missile weapons with their deterrent potential, humanity has so far managed to avoid new global wars. They were replaced by numerous local, or “small” wars and armed conflicts. Individual states, their coalitions, as well as various socio-political and religious groups within countries have repeatedly used force of arms to resolve territorial, political, economic, ethno-confessional and other problems and disputes.

It is important to emphasize that until the beginning of the 1990s, all post-war armed conflicts took place against the backdrop of intense confrontation between two opposing socio-political systems and military-political blocs unprecedented in their power - NATO and the Warsaw Division. Therefore, local armed clashes of that time were considered primarily as an integral part of the global struggle for the spheres of influence of two protagonists - the USA and the USSR.

With the collapse of the bipolar model of the world structure, the ideological confrontation between the two superpowers and socio-political systems has become a thing of the past, and the likelihood of a world war has significantly decreased. The confrontation between the two systems “ceased to be the axis around which the main events of world history and politics unfolded for more than four decades,” which, although it opened up wide opportunities for peaceful cooperation, also entailed the emergence of new challenges and threats.

Initial optimistic hopes for peace and prosperity, unfortunately, did not materialize. The fragile balance on the geopolitical scales was replaced by a sharp destabilization of the international situation and an exacerbation of hitherto hidden tensions within individual states. In particular, interethnic and ethno-confessional relations did not become complicated in the region, which provoked numerous local wars and armed conflicts. In the new conditions, the peoples and nationalities of individual states remembered old grievances and began to make claims to disputed territories, gaining autonomy, or even complete separation and independence. Moreover, in almost all modern conflicts there is not only a geopolitical, as before, but also a geocivilizational component, most often with an ethnonational or ethnoconfessional overtone.

Therefore, while the number of interstate and interregional wars and military conflicts (especially those provoked by “ideological opponents”) has declined, the number of intrastate confrontations, caused primarily by ethno-confessional, ethnoterritorial and ethnopolitical reasons, has sharply increased. Conflicts between numerous armed groups within states and crumbling power structures have become much more frequent. Thus, at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century, the most common form of military confrontation became an internal (intrastate), local in scope, limited armed conflict.

These problems manifested themselves with particular severity in the former socialist states with a federal structure, as well as in a number of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Thus, the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia led only in 1989-1992 to the emergence of more than 10 ethnopolitical conflicts, and in the global “South” around the same time more than 25 “small wars” and armed clashes broke out. Moreover, most of them were characterized by unprecedented intensity and were accompanied by mass migration of the civilian population, which created a threat of destabilization of entire regions and necessitated the need for large-scale international humanitarian assistance.

If in the first few years after the end of the Cold War the number of armed conflicts in the world decreased by more than a third, then by the mid-1990s it increased significantly again. Suffice it to say that in 1995 alone, 30 major armed conflicts took place in 25 different regions of the world, and in 1994, in at least 5 of the 31 armed conflicts, participating states resorted to the use of regular armed forces. According to estimates by the Carnegie Commission on the Prevention of Deadly Conflicts, in the 1990s, the seven largest wars and armed confrontations alone cost the international community $199 billion (excluding the costs of the countries directly involved).

Moreover, a radical shift in the development of international relations, significant changes in the field of geopolitics and geostrategy, and the emerging asymmetry along the North-South line have largely aggravated old problems and provoked new ones (international terrorism and organized crime, drug trafficking, smuggling of weapons and military equipment, danger environmental disasters) that require adequate responses from the international community. Moreover, the zone of instability is expanding: if earlier, during the Cold War, this zone passed mainly through the countries of the Near and Middle East, now it begins in the Western Sahara region and spreads to Eastern and South-Eastern Europe, Transcaucasia, South-Eastern and Central Asia. At the same time, we can assume with a reasonable degree of confidence that such a situation is not short-term and transitory.

The main feature of the conflicts of the new historical period was that there was a redistribution of the role of various spheres in armed confrontation: the course and outcome of the armed struggle as a whole is determined mainly by confrontation in the aerospace sphere and at sea, and land groups will consolidate the achieved military success and directly ensure the achievement political goals.

Against this background, increased interdependence and mutual influence of actions at the strategic, operational and tactical levels in the armed struggle has emerged. In fact, this suggests that the old concept of conventional wars, both limited and large-scale, is undergoing significant changes. Even local conflicts can be fought over relatively large areas with the most decisive goals. At the same time, the main tasks are solved not during a collision of advanced units, but through fire engagement from extreme ranges.

Based on an analysis of the most general features of conflicts at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries, the following fundamental conclusions can be drawn regarding the military-political features of armed struggle at the present stage and in the foreseeable future.

The armed forces reaffirm their central role in carrying out security operations. The actual combat role of paramilitary forces, paramilitary forces, militias, and internal security forces units turns out to be significantly less than expected before the outbreak of armed conflicts. They turned out to be unable to conduct active combat operations against the regular army (Iraq).

The decisive moment for achieving military-political success is to seize the strategic initiative during an armed conflict. Passive conduct of hostilities in the hope of “exhaling” the enemy’s offensive impulse will lead to the loss of controllability of one’s own group and subsequently to the loss of the conflict.

The peculiarity of the armed struggle of the future will be that during the war, not only military facilities and troops will come under enemy attacks, but at the same time the country’s economy with all its infrastructure, civilian population and territory. Despite the development of the accuracy of weapons of destruction, all the studied armed conflicts of recent times were, to one degree or another, humanitarian “dirty” and entailed significant casualties among the civilian population. In this regard, there is a need for a highly organized and effective system of civil defense of the country.

The criteria for military victory in local conflicts will be different, however, in general, it is obvious that the main importance is the solution of political problems in an armed conflict, while military-political and operational-tactical tasks are primarily of an auxiliary nature. In none of the conflicts examined was the victorious side able to inflict the planned damage on the enemy. But, nevertheless, she was able to achieve the political goals of the conflict.

Today, there is a possibility of escalation of modern armed conflicts both horizontally (drawing new countries and regions into them) and vertically (increasing the scale and intensity of violence within fragile states). Analysis of trends in the development of the geopolitical and geostrategic situation in the world at the current stage makes it possible to assess it as crisis-unstable. Therefore, it is absolutely obvious that all armed conflicts, regardless of the degree of their intensity and localization, require an early settlement, and ideally, complete resolution. One of the time-tested ways to prevent, control and resolve such “small” wars are various forms of peacekeeping.

Due to the increase in local conflicts, the world community, under the auspices of the UN, developed in the 90s such a means for maintaining or establishing peace as peacekeeping, peace enforcement operations.

But, despite the opportunity that emerged with the end of the Cold War to initiate peace enforcement operations, the UN, as time has shown, does not have the necessary potential (military, logistical, financial, organizational and technical) to carry them out. Evidence of this is the failure of the UN operations in Somalia and Rwanda, when the situation there urgently demanded an early transition from traditional peacekeeping operations to forced ones, and the UN was unable to do this on its own.

That is why, in the 1990s, a tendency emerged and subsequently developed for the UN to delegate its powers in the field of military peacekeeping to regional organizations, individual states and coalitions of states ready to take on crisis response tasks, such as NATO, for example.

Peacekeeping approaches create the opportunity to flexibly and comprehensively influence the conflict with the aim of resolving it and further final resolution. Moreover, in parallel, at the level of the military-political leadership and among the broadest sections of the population of the warring parties, work must necessarily be carried out aimed at changing psychological attitudes towards the conflict. This means that peacekeepers and representatives of the international community must, whenever possible, “break” and change the stereotypes of relations between the parties to the conflict that have developed in relation to each other, which are expressed in extreme hostility, intolerance, vindictiveness and intransigence.

But it is important that peacekeeping operations comply with fundamental international legal norms and do not violate human rights and sovereign states - no matter how difficult it may be to combine this. This combination, or at least an attempt at it, is especially relevant in the light of new operations in recent years, called “humanitarian intervention”, or “humanitarian intervention”, which are carried out in the interests of certain groups of the population. But, while protecting human rights, they violate the sovereignty of the state, its right to non-interference from outside - international legal foundations that have evolved over centuries and were considered unshakable until recently. At the same time, in our opinion, it is impossible to allow outside intervention in the conflict under the slogan of the struggle for peace and security or the protection of human rights to turn into overt armed intervention and aggression, as happened in 1999 in Yugoslavia.

Korean War (1950 - 1953)

The patriotic liberation war of the people of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) against the South Korean military and American interventionists, one of the largest local wars after World War II.

Unleashed by the South Korean military and the ruling circles of the United States with the goal of eliminating the DPRK and turning Korea into a springboard for an attack on China and the USSR.

The aggression against the DPRK lasted more than 3 years and cost the United States $20 billion. More than 1 million people, up to 1 thousand tanks, St. 1600 aircraft, more than 200 ships. Aviation played an important role in the aggressive actions of the Americans. During the war, the US Air Force flew 104,078 sorties and dropped about 700 thousand tons of bombs and napalm. The Americans widely used bacteriological and chemical weapons, from which the civilian population suffered the most.

The war ended with the military and political defeat of the aggressors and showed that in modern conditions there are powerful social and political forces that have sufficient means to give a crushing rebuff to the aggressor.

Vietnamese People's War of Resistance (1960-1975)

This is a war against US aggression and the Saigon puppet regime. Victory over the French colonialists in the war of 1946-1954. created favorable conditions for the peaceful unification of the Vietnamese people. But this was not part of the US plans. A government was formed in South Vietnam, which, with the help of American advisers, began hastily creating an army. In 1958, it consisted of 150 thousand people. In addition, the country had 200,000-strong paramilitary forces, which were widely used in punitive expeditions against patriots who did not stop fighting for freedom and the national independence of Vietnam.

Up to 2.6 million American soldiers and officers took part in the Vietnam War. The interventionists were armed with over 5 thousand combat aircraft and helicopters, 2,500 artillery pieces, and hundreds of tanks.

Vietnam was hit with 14 million tons of bombs and shells, equivalent to the power of more than 700 atomic bombs like the one that destroyed Hiroshima.

US spending on the war reached $146 billion.

The war, which lasted 15 years, was brought to a victorious end by the Vietnamese people. During this time, more than 2 million people were killed in its fire, and at the same time the United States and its allies lost up to 1 million killed and wounded, about 9 thousand aircraft and helicopters, as well as a large amount of other military equipment. American losses in the war amounted to 360 thousand people, of which more than 55 thousand were killed.

Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973

The third war unleashed by Israel in June 1967 was a continuation of its expansionist policy, which relied on extensive assistance from the imperialist powers, primarily the United States, and Zionist circles abroad. The war plan provided for the overthrow of the ruling regimes in Egypt and Syria and the creation of “great Israel from the Euphrates to the Nile” at the expense of Arab lands. By the beginning of the war, the Israeli army was completely re-equipped with the latest American and British weapons and military equipment.

During the war, Israel inflicted a serious defeat on Egypt, Syria and Jordan, occupying 68.5 thousand square meters. km of their territory. The total losses of the armed forces of the Arab countries amounted to over 40 thousand people, 900 tanks and 360 combat aircraft. Israeli troops lost 800 people, 200 tanks and 100 aircraft.

The reason for the Arab-Israeli war of 1973 was the desire of Egypt and Syria to return the territories seized by Israel and take revenge for the defeat in the 1967 war. The ruling circles of Tel Aviv, preparing for war, sought to consolidate the occupation of Arab lands, and, if possible, expand their possessions .

The main means of achieving this goal was the continuous increase in the military power of the state, which occurred with the help of the United States and other Western powers.

The 1973 war was one of the largest local wars in the Middle East. It was carried out by armed forces equipped with all types of modern military equipment and weapons. According to American data, Israel was even preparing to use nuclear weapons.

In total, 1.5 million people, 6,300 tanks, 13,200 guns and mortars and over 1,500 combat aircraft took part in the war. The losses of the Arab countries amounted to over 19 thousand people, up to 2000 tanks and about 350 aircraft. Israel lost over 15 thousand people, 700 tanks and up to 250 planes and helicopters in the war.

Results. The conflict had far-reaching consequences for many nations. The Arab world, humiliated by its crushing defeat in the Six-Day War, despite the new defeat, still felt some of its pride restored by a series of victories early in the conflict.

Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)

The main reasons for the war were the mutual territorial claims of Iran and Iraq, acute religious differences between the Muslims inhabiting these countries, as well as the struggle for leadership in the Arab world between S. Hussein and A. Khomeini. Iran has long been putting forward demands on Iraq to revise the border on an 82-kilometer section of the Shatt al-Arab River. Iraq, in turn, demanded that Iran cede territory along the land border in the regions of Khorramshahr, Foucault, Mehran (two sections), Neftshah and Qasre-Shirin with a total area of about 370 km 2.

Religious strife had a negative impact on Iran-Iraq relations. Iran has long been considered a stronghold of Shiism - one of the main movements of Islam. Representatives of Sunni Islam occupy a privileged position in the leadership of Iraq, although more than half of the country's population are Shiite Muslims. In addition, the main Shiite shrines - the cities of Najav and Karbala - are also located on Iraqi territory. With the coming to power in Iran in 1979 of the Shiite clergy led by A. Khomeini, religious differences between Shiites and Sunnis sharply worsened.

Finally, among the reasons for the war, one cannot fail to note some personal ambitions of the leaders of the two countries, who sought to become the head of “the entire Arab world.” Deciding on war, S. Hussein hoped that the defeat of Iran would lead to the fall of A. Khomeini and the weakening of the Shiite clergy. A. Khomeini also had a personal dislike for Saddam Hussein due to the fact that in the late 70s the Iraqi authorities expelled him from the country, where he lived for 15 years, leading the Shah's opposition.

The start of the war was preceded by a period of aggravated relations between Iran and Iraq. Beginning in February 1979, Iran periodically carried out aerial reconnaissance and bombing of Iraqi territory, as well as artillery shelling of border settlements and outposts. Under these conditions, the military-political leadership of Iraq decided to launch a preemptive strike against the enemy with ground forces and aviation, quickly defeat the troops stationed near the border, occupy the oil-rich southwestern part of the country and create a puppet buffer state in this territory. Iraq managed to secretly deploy strike forces on the border with Iran and achieve a sudden outbreak of hostilities.

By the summer of 1988, both sides participating in the war had finally reached a political, economic and military dead end. Continuation of hostilities in any form on land, in the air and at sea has become futile. The ruling circles of Iran and Iraq were forced to sit down at the negotiating table. On August 20, 1988, the war, which lasted almost 8 years and claimed more than a million lives, finally came to an end. The USSR and other countries made a great contribution to the settlement of the conflict.

War in Afghanistan (1979-1989)

In April 1978, in one of the most backward countries in Asia - Afghanistan, a military coup was carried out to overthrow the royal monarchy. The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA), led by M. Taraki, came to power in the country and began the socio-economic transformation of Afghan society.

After the April Revolution, the PDPA set a course not to demolish the old army (in the ranks of which the revolutionary movement was born), but to improve it.

The progressive collapse of the army was a sign of the increasingly obvious death of the republic in the conditions of the beginning of the general offensive of the armed forces of the counter-revolution.

There was a looming danger not only of the Afghan people losing all the revolutionary gains of April 1978, but also of the creation of a pro-imperialist state hostile to it on the borders of the Soviet Union.

In these extraordinary circumstances, in order to protect the young republic from the advance of counter-revolutionary forces, in December 1979 the Soviet Union sent its regular troops into Afghanistan.

The war lasted 10 years.

On February 15, 1989, the last soldiers of the 40th Army, led by its commander, Lieutenant General B. Gromov, crossed the Soviet-Afghan border.

Gulf War (1990-1991)

After Kuwait’s refusal to fulfill the economic and territorial claims put forward by Baghdad in 1990, the Iraqi army occupied the territory of this country and on 08/02/90 Iraq announced the annexation of Kuwait. Washington was presented with a convenient opportunity to strengthen its influence in the region and, relying on the support of the international community, the United States stationed its military bases in the countries of the region.

At the same time, the UN Security Council (SC) sought to politically and economically influence Baghdad with the aim of withdrawing Iraqi troops from Kuwaiti territory. However, Iraq did not submit to the demands of the UN Security Council and as a result of Operation Desert Storm (17.01.91-27.02.91) carried out by the forces of the anti-Iraqi coalition (which included 34 countries) Kuwait was liberated.

Features of military art in local wars

In most local wars, the goals of the operation and battle were achieved by the joint efforts of all branches of the ground forces.

The most important means of suppressing the enemy, both offensively and defensively, was artillery. At the same time, it is believed that large-caliber artillery in the jungle and the guerrilla nature of the war does not give the desired results.

In these conditions, as a rule, mortars and medium-caliber howitzers were used. In the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, according to foreign experts, self-propelled artillery and anti-tank guided missiles showed high efficiency. In the Korean War, American artillery was well provided with aerial reconnaissance assets (two spotters per division); which facilitated the task of reconnaissance of targets, exchange of fire and shooting to kill in conditions of limited observation capabilities. In the Arab-Israeli War of 1973, tactical missiles with warheads in conventional equipment were used for the first time.

Armored forces have found widespread use in many local wars. They played a very important role in the outcome of the battle. The specifics of the use of tanks were determined by the conditions of a particular theater of military operations and the forces of the warring parties. In a number of cases, they were used as part of formations to break through defenses and subsequently develop an offensive along the same lines (Arab-Israeli War). However, in most local wars, tank units were used as tanks for direct support of infantry, when breaking through the most engineered and anti-tank defense sectors in Korea, Vietnam, etc. At the same time, the interventionists used tanks to reinforce artillery fire from indirect firing positions (especially in the Korean War). In addition, tanks were used as part of forward detachments and reconnaissance units (Israeli aggression of 1967). In South Vietnam, self-propelled artillery units were used in conjunction with tanks, often in conjunction with tanks. Amphibious tanks were increasingly used in combat.

In local wars, aggressors made extensive use of air forces. Aviation fought for air supremacy, supported ground forces, isolated the combat area, undermined the military-economic potential of the country, conducted aerial reconnaissance, transported manpower and military equipment in specific theaters of military operations (mountains, forests, jungles) and a huge the scope of guerrilla warfare; airplanes and helicopters were, in essence, the only highly maneuverable means in the hands of the interventionists, which is clearly confirmed by the war in Vietnam. During the Korean War, the American command attracted up to 35% of the regular air force.

Aviation actions often reached the scale of an independent air war. Military transport aviation was also used on a larger scale. All this led to the fact that in a number of cases the Air Force was reduced to operational formations - air armies (Korea).

What was new compared to World War II was the use of large numbers of jet aircraft. For the purpose of closer interaction with infantry units (subunits), the so-called light aviation of the ground forces was created. Using even a small number of aircraft, the interventionists were able to keep enemy targets under continuous influence for a long time. In local wars, helicopters were first used and widely developed. They were the main means for deploying tactical landings (for the first time in Korea), observing the battlefield, evacuating the wounded, adjusting artillery fire, and delivering cargo and personnel to areas inaccessible to other types of transport. Combat helicopters armed with anti-tank guided missiles have become an effective means of fire support for ground troops.

Various tasks were performed by naval forces. The navy found particularly widespread use in the Korean War. In terms of numbers and activity, it was superior to the naval forces participating in other local wars. The fleet freely transported military equipment and ammunition and constantly blocked the coast, which made it difficult to organize supplies to the DPRK by sea. What was new was the organization of amphibious landings. Unlike the operations of the Second World War, helicopter aircraft located on aircraft carriers were used for landing.

Local wars are rich in examples of airborne landings. The problems they solved were very diverse. Airborne assault forces were used to capture important objects, road junctions, and airfields behind enemy lines, and were used as forward detachments to capture and hold lines and objects until the main forces arrived (Israeli aggression of 1967). They also solved the problems of organizing ambushes along the routes of movement of units of the people's liberation armies and partisans, strengthening units of ground forces conducting combat operations in certain areas, conducting punitive operations against civilians (aggression of American troops in South Vietnam), seizing bridgeheads and important areas in in order to ensure the subsequent landing of amphibious assault forces. In this case, both parachute and landing landings were used. Depending on the importance of the tasks, the forces and composition of the airborne forces varied: from small groups of paratroopers to separate airborne brigades. To prevent the destruction of the landing forces in the air or at the moment of landing, various loads were first dropped by parachute. The defenders opened fire on them and thereby revealed themselves. The exposed firing points were suppressed by aviation, and then the paratroopers were dropped.

Infantry units landing by helicopter were widely used as landing forces. Landing or parachute landings were carried out at different depths. If the drop area was under the control of the aggressor troops, then it reached 100 km or more. In general, the depth of the drop was determined in such a way that the landing party could connect on the first or second day of the operation with the troops advancing from the front. In all cases, during an airborne landing, aviation support was organized, which included reconnaissance of the landing area and the upcoming landing operations, the suppression of enemy strongholds in the area and direct aviation training.

The US armed forces widely used flamethrowers and incendiaries, including napalm. American aviation used 70 thousand tons of napalm mixture during the Korean War. Napalm was also widely used in the Israeli aggression against the Arab states in 1967. The interventionists repeatedly used chemical mines, bombs and shells.

Disregarding international norms, the United States widely used certain types of weapons of mass destruction: in Vietnam, toxic substances, and in Korea, bacteriological weapons. According to incomplete data, from January 1952 to June 1953, about 3 thousand cases of the spread of infected bacteria in the territory of the DPRK were recorded.

During military operations against the interventionists, the military art of the people's liberation armies was improved. The strength of these armies lay in the widespread support of their people and in the combination of their fighting with a nationwide guerrilla struggle.

Despite their poor technical equipment, they gained experience in conducting combat operations against a strong enemy and, as a rule, moved from guerrilla warfare to regular operations.

The strategic actions of the patriotic forces were planned and carried out depending on the developing situation and, above all, on the balance of forces of the parties. Thus, the strategy of the liberation struggle of the South Vietnamese patriots was based on the idea of “wedges”. The territory they controlled was a wedge-shaped region that divided South Vietnam into isolated parts. In this situation, the enemy was forced to fragment his forces and conduct combat operations in unfavorable conditions for himself.

The experience of the Korean People's Army in concentrating efforts to repel aggression is noteworthy. The main command of the Korean People's Army, having information about the preparations for the invasion, developed a plan that called for bleeding the enemy in defensive battles, and then launching a counteroffensive, defeating the aggressors and liberating South Korea. It pulled up its troops to the 38th parallel and concentrated its main forces in the Seoul direction, where the main enemy attack was expected. The created group of troops ensured not only the successful repulsion of the treacherous attack, but also the delivery of a decisive retaliatory strike. The direction of the main attack was chosen correctly and the time for the transition to a counteroffensive was determined. His general plan, which was to defeat the main enemy forces in the Seoul area with the simultaneous development of an offensive in other directions, followed from the current situation, since in the event of the defeat of these enemy forces, all of his defenses south of the 38th parallel would collapse. The counteroffensive was carried out at a time when the aggressor troops had not yet overcome the tactical defense zone.

However, in planning and conducting combat operations by the people's liberation armies, the actual situation was not always fully and comprehensively taken into account. Thus, the lack of strategic reserves (the Korean War) did not allow the completion of the defeat of the enemy in the Pusan bridgehead area during the first period of the war, and in the second period of the war it led to heavy losses and the abandonment of a significant part of the territory.

In the Arab-Israeli wars, the peculiarity of preparation and conduct of defense was determined by the mountainous desert terrain. When building a defense, the main efforts were concentrated on holding important areas, the loss of which would lead enemy strike groups along the shortest routes to the rear of the defending troops in other directions. Great importance was attached to the creation of a strong anti-tank defense. Considerable attention was paid to organizing strong air defense (the Vietnam War, the Arab-Israeli Wars). According to the testimony of American pilots, the North Vietnamese air defense, thanks to the help of Soviet specialists and equipment, turned out to be the most advanced of all with which they dealt.

During local wars, the methods of conducting offensive and defensive battles by the people's liberation armies were improved. The offensive was carried out mainly at night, often without artillery preparation. The experience of local wars once again confirmed the great effectiveness of night battles, especially against a technically superior enemy and with the dominance of its aviation. The organization and conduct of combat in each war was largely determined by the nature of the terrain and other features inherent in a particular theater of military operations.

Formations of the KPA and Chinese People's Volunteers in mountainous and wooded areas often received offensive lines that included only one road, along which their battle formation deployed. As a result, the divisions did not have adjacent flanks; the gaps between the flanks reached 15-20 km. The battle formation of the formations was built in one or two echelons. The width of the divisions' breakthrough area was up to 3 km or more. During the offensive, the formations fought along the roads with part of their forces, while the main forces tried to reach the flanks and rear of the defending enemy group. The lack of a sufficient number of vehicles and mechanical traction in the troops significantly limited their ability to encircle and destroy the enemy.

In defense, the armies showed high activity and maneuverability, where the focal nature of the defense most corresponded to the mountainous conditions of the theater of military operations. In defense, based on the experience of the war in Korea and Vietnam, tunnels were widely used, in which closed firing positions and shelters were equipped. The tactics of tunnel warfare in mountainous terrain, enemy air supremacy, and the widespread use of incendiary agents such as napalm, according to Western experts, have fully justified themselves.

A characteristic feature of the defensive actions of the patriotic forces was the constant harassing fire on the enemy and frequent counterattacks by small groups in order to exhaust and destroy him.

Combat practice confirmed the need to organize a strong anti-tank defense. In Korea, due to the mountainous terrain, tank operations outside the roads were limited. Therefore, anti-tank weapons were concentrated along roads and hard-to-reach valleys in such a way that enemy tanks were destroyed from short distances by flanking guns. Anti-tank defense was even more advanced in the Arab-Israeli War of 1973 (Syria, Egypt). It was built to cover the entire depth of tactical defense and included an anti-tank guided missile system (ATGM), direct fire guns, artillery located in tank-hazardous directions, anti-tank reserves, mobile obstacle detachments (POZ) and mine-explosive barriers. According to Western experts, ATGMs were superior in combat effectiveness to any other anti-tank weapons, penetrating the armor of all types of tanks that participated in the war.

During local wars, the organization of tactical anti-landing defense was improved. Thus, during the maneuver period of the Korean War, troops were usually located at a considerable distance from the sea coast and fought against enemy troops that had landed on the shore. In contrast, during the positional period of hostilities, the front edge of the defense was brought to the water's edge, the troops were located not far from the front edge, which made it possible to successfully repel enemy landings even when approaching the shore. This confirmed the special need for a clear organization of all types of reconnaissance.

In the local wars of the 50s, the experience of command and control gained in the Second World War was widely used. During the war in Korea, the work of commanders and staffs was characterized by a desire to organize combat operations on the ground and to personal communication when setting combat missions. Considerable attention was paid to the engineering equipment of control points.

A number of new aspects in troop control can be traced in the local wars of subsequent years. Space reconnaissance is being organized, in particular by Israeli troops in October 1973. Airborne command posts are being created on helicopters, for example, in the US war in Vietnam. At the same time, for the centralized control of ground forces, aviation and naval forces, joint control centers were equipped at operational headquarters.

The content, tasks and methods of electronic warfare (EW) have expanded significantly. The main method of electronic suppression is the concentrated and massive use of electronic warfare forces and means in a chosen direction. During the war in the Middle East, automatic command and control systems were tested, as well as a unified communication system, including with the help of artificial earth satellites.

In general, studying the experience of local wars helps improve the methods of combat use of forces and means in battle (operations), influencing the art of war in wars of the present and future.

For reference:

There are also portraits and biographies of famous traitors: Kim Philby, Richard Sorge. Alfred Redl, and the lives and photographs of those who conducted the Services at various times. Numerous original posters of original posters. This outstanding example was given to Prince Faisal: the weapon was delivered to a British soldier captured at the fall of Gallipoli, and it was given to the prince by the Turks. Death occurred a few days later. The blind aiming finger is hidden inside the hydrogen cyanide spray device.

Pages of periodicals containing propaganda or misinformation for the population. Large numbers of falsified letters or small messages transmitted by spy networks, especially during the First World War. This is just a brief description of the objects on display, which is very reductive. Significantly large number of paper documents. The entire show gives a deep and comprehensive picture of what the secret wars were until about 20 years ago. Accompanying the exhibition is a book catalog with approximately thirty essays by material experts, scientists and Information Server historians who accompany the various sections of the exhibition with their studies, creating intelligence activities in past and present history.

Among the various studies, all of which are visually interesting, are Olivier Forcadet, Olivier Lahaie, Frederic Helton, Hervé Lenning of Maurice Weiss. At the beginning of this century it was widely believed that human progress has no limits. Now, as we conclude, we know that the high ideals and great goals imagined at the very beginning have been disappointed by the extremist ideologies that have crossed the world, leaving conflicts and carnage in their wake. Perhaps no other century has seen such endless tragedy and human madness: the natural environment has suffered greatly and the gap between rich and poor is deeper than ever.

The role of the initial period of armed conflict or war has increased significantly. As an analysis of the outcome of armed conflicts shows, it was the seizure of the initiative at the initial stage of hostilities that predetermined the outcome.

The closer we get to its end, the greater the sense of anguish faced by the futility and waste that characterize this period of human history. At a time when the first warning voices arose in the face of the danger of nuclear war on a planetary scale, the terrible expression of excess was often used. Later, thanks to the courageous efforts of former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and other world leaders, the configuration he brought about was dismantled, and today the nightmare of a nuclear apocalypse seems somewhat more distant.

The influence of Western civilization. Compared to the order that prevailed in pre-modern communal societies, our post-modern world is far from sorted and, in fact, “overloaded.” Toynbee's hypothesis then moves quickly to a thousand years in the future. Therefore, according to Toynbee, long before the globalization that is discussed today, especially in terms of global economic integration, is mainly based on the spontaneous awareness of all citizens of the world who shares the same fate as passengers that could call it "Earth's spaceship."

The use of various forms and methods of combat operations, including unconventional ones;

The end of the era of nuclear weapons! Three hundred and fifty years have passed since the Peace Treaty of Westphalia, which laid out the foundations of the modern political position on statehood. It is clear that today such a structure is not suitable for solving global problems. To give one example: although appeals have been launched over time for the creation of a permanent court capable of trying those who violate international law against genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, such an organism has not yet been born.

In addition to assessing those responsible for crimes against international law, which govern respect for humanity and human rights, such a body would also be responsible for punishing and compensating the victims of these crimes. Human rights issues and problems cannot be reintroduced within the framework of one country, and finally, we understand that the commitment and cooperation of the international community is necessary to solve them. However, to date, states have tended to view various attempts to create systems and organisms capable of responding effectively to such a need as attempts to limit and relativize national sovereignty - which is true to some extent - and there must be repeated resistance to the idea of a permanent international criminal court .

military conflict . Its mandatory characteristic is the use of military force, all types of armed confrontation, including large-scale, regional, local wars and armed conflicts.

The vision of a world less centered on the nation-state may still be vague and distant, but it is clear that the individual will have more influence in a world where the state is smaller. The role and responsibility of individuals - as protagonists and story builders - must grow. It is increasingly important for us to learn to live and act as "global" citizens, active and creative, capable of recognizing and completing our respective responsibilities for the next millennium.

Military conflict

Armed conflict

- Local war

These weapons were invented in this century and pose the greatest threat ever known to the survival of mankind. We strongly urge all nuclear weapon states to express to the world their will to end the era of nuclear power this century. To build a society in which people can lead truly human lives, and not just to end the nuclear threat, it is absolutely necessary that we build a new civil society that has roots in popular initiative.

- Regional war

Last year there was a debate about environmental conditions, another global issue. We must never forget that only the commitment of responsible and capable citizens, those who do not expect others to take the initiative, can give birth to a third millennium inspired by respect for the sanctity of life, free from war and nuclear, an enlightened living rainbow of diversity. As the clouds of World War II approached, Czechoslovakian writer Karel Kapek denounced sentences such as “someone must,” “it’s not that simple,” as examples of spiritual poverty that only passively accepts the status quo: If someone drowns, you there is no need to stop thinking that "someone must go to save him."

- Large scale war

Massive use of weapons systems and military equipment based on new physical principles and comparable in effectiveness to nuclear weapons;

Most likely closest them consequences :

Death, injury, illness;

Environmental pollution;

Violation of control systems;

Economic paralysis.

Environmental consequences .

Economic consequences –

Medical consequences

Social consequences

Demographic implications

The level of threats and uncertainty factors have a significant impact on the development of the military-political and military-strategic situation in the world, on the creation of hotbeds of tension and conflict zones, on the nature of wars and armed conflicts.

For reference: The uncertainty factor is understood as a situation or process of a political or military-political nature, the development of which can significantly change the geopolitical situation in a region that is a priority for the interests of the state or create a direct threat to its security).

Objects used in the Cold War as a reversible coat, tweed on one side and khaki gabardine on the other, used by British agents operating in the German Democratic Republic. To show how the agents were misled, other documents show the passport the Czechoslovakian agent gave to the nun.

In this regard, a box of camouflage accessories, including female bushes, various wigs. Enigma codes and portraits of famous traitors. An evening shoe whose heel holds a sharp retractable blade, an object also featured in one of the first James Bond films. A lot of encryption finds: books, ciphers, codes.

Analysis of the specifics of armed conflicts of the 1990s. - the beginning of the 21st century revealed several fundamental points.

No generalized type of armed conflict was found. Conflicts in the forms and principles of warfare were very different.

A significant part of the conflicts were asymmetrical in nature, that is, they occurred between opponents at different stages in technical terms, as well as in the qualitative state of the armed forces.

There are also portraits and biographies of famous traitors: Kim Philby, Richard Sorge. Alfred Redl, as well as the lives and photographs of those who performed the Services at various times. Numerous original posters of original posters. This outstanding example was given to Prince Faisal: the weapon was delivered to a British soldier captured at the fall of Gallipoli, and it was given to the prince by the Turks. Death occurred a few days later. The blind aiming finger is hidden inside the hydrogen cyanide spray device.

All conflicts developed in a relatively limited area within the same theater of operations, but often with the use of forces and assets located outside it. However, essentially local conflicts were accompanied by great bitterness and resulted in a number of cases in the complete destruction of the state system (if there was one) of one of the parties to the conflict.

Among the various studies, all of which are scientifically interesting, are Olivier Forcadet, Olivier Lahaie, Frederic Helton, Hervé Lenning of Maurice Weiss. At the beginning of this century it was widely believed that human progress has no limits. Now, as we conclude, we know that the high ideals and great goals imagined at the very beginning have been disappointed by the extremist ideologies that have crossed the world, leaving conflicts and carnage in their wake. Perhaps no other century has seen such endless tragedy and human madness: the natural environment has suffered greatly and the gap between rich and poor is deeper than ever.

The main role in the initial period of the war, of course, was assigned to long-range precision weapons operating in conjunction with aviation. However, in the future, the main burden of combat operations fell on the Ground Forces.

The closer we get to its end, the greater the sense of anguish confronted by the futility and waste that characterize this period of human history. At a time when the first warning voices arose in the face of the danger of nuclear war on a planetary scale, the terrible expression of excess was often used. Later, thanks to the courageous efforts of former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and other world leaders, the configuration he brought about was dismantled, and today the nightmare of a nuclear apocalypse seems somewhat more distant.

Military conflicts were caused by objective contradictions in the vital interests of various states or various socio-political groupings within these states, the desire of some of them to dominate others and the inability or unwillingness of their political leaders to resolve these contradictions by non-military means.

However, excess still operates and, like the curse of Cain, torments the entire world. The philosopher Isaiah Berlin wrote: “No century has seen so many brutal and repeated massacres of people as the one we are experiencing.” 2. According to many intellectuals, including the American historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

The characteristic features of the wars of recent decades include:

The use of various forms and methods of combat operations, including unconventional ones;

The combination of military operations (conducted in accordance with the rules of military science) with guerrilla and terrorist actions;

Widespread use of criminal groups;

At the same time, the Soviet Union launched the Cominform and began talking about producing nuclear weapons. We cannot ignore the significance of Toynbee's vision, proclaimed at a time when people had much more immediate problems and were influenced by the interests of myopia. His view covers such a large scale that it could easily be dismissed as pure fantasy, not sufficiently supported by facts. Indeed, his macroscopic vision has been critically defined as the product, not of a historian, but of a fatalistic visionary.

Transience of military operations (30-60 days);

Selectivity of hitting objects;

Increasing the role of long-distance combat using high-precision radio-controlled equipment;

Conducting targeted strikes on key facilities (critical elements of economic facilities);

A combination of powerful political-diplomatic, informational, psychological and economic influence.

But finally, given the widespread view that the international community's response to the situation in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and other countries was painfully inadequate, an international conference was planned in Rome this June leading to the creation of a permanent international criminal court.

2. Types of military conflicts and their main characteristics

One of the most brutal forms used by society to resolve interstate or intrastate contradictions is military conflict . Its mandatory characteristic is the use of military force, all types of armed confrontation, including large-scale, regional, local wars and armed conflicts.

It is important for ordinary citizens to develop greater wisdom and energy and face their responsibilities to create a better future. And they have been actively involved in solving problems related to the issue of security and the use of weapons, areas that have traditionally had exclusive state competence.

Military conflict - a form of resolving interstate or intrastate contradictions with the use of military force (the concept covers all types of armed confrontation, including large-scale, regional, local wars and armed conflicts).

Armed conflict - armed conflict of a limited scale between states (international armed conflict) or opposing parties within the territory of one state (internal armed conflict);

These are initiatives that give confidence and hope to all who love peace. Often these are weapons to draw the fire of those regional conflicts that represent the tragic legacy left to the world. Effective measures must be taken to prevent the spread.

Along with efforts to reduce and ultimately eliminate weapons of mass destruction, control of conventional weapons used to kill, maim and terrorize people in conflicts around the world must be introduced: this is a key step towards creating an institutional framework for peace . Solving such hot-button issues should not be left to governments alone.

An armed conflict may result from the escalation of an armed incident, a border conflict, an armed action and other armed clashes of a limited scale, during which means of armed struggle are used to resolve contradictions.

An armed conflict can be international in nature (involving two or more states) or internal in nature (involving armed confrontation within the territory of one state).

The International Court of Justice's opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons expresses the unanimous concept: "Must act in good faith to conclude negotiations and agreements aimed at nuclear disarmament in all forms and strict and effective international control."

We need to raise international public opinion and urge nuclear-weapon states to begin immediate negotiations on a treaty for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. He urges us to follow the campaign for the World Tribunal, which gave rise to the opinion of the International Court of Justice with its main and overarching goal of the complete abolition of any form of nuclear weapons. It urges all states equipped with nuclear weapons to conclude, within the next two thousand years, a treaty providing for a precise program aimed at the complete elimination of such weapons.

Military conflicts can take place in several types.

- Local war - a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military-political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of opposing states and which primarily affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and others);

We must use the last three years of the twentieth century to lay concrete foundations for the future of a new global society, a civilization that is made up of “people, people, people.” A number of activities have already been planned to enable this commitment to be fulfilled.

- Regional war - a war involving two or more states of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military-political goals;

This Assembly will be held jointly with the United Nations Millennium Assembly. In his Document on the Revival of the United Nations: An Agenda for Reform, UN Secretary-General Annan makes precise reference to this House of the People.

- Large scale war - a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military-political goals. A large-scale war can result from the escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of states from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating states.

It is assumed that large-scale wars will have the following characteristic features:

Integrated use of military force, non-military forces and means;

Massive use of weapons systems and military equipment based on new physical principles and comparable in effectiveness to nuclear weapons;

Expanding the scope of the use of troops (forces) and assets operating in aerospace;

Strengthening the role of information warfare;

Reducing the time parameters for preparing for military operations;

Increasing the efficiency of command and control as a result of the transition from a strictly vertical command and control system to global network automated systems for command and control of troops (forces) and weapons;

Creation of a permanent war zone in the territories of the warring parties.

Modern military conflicts will be distinguished by the unpredictability of their occurrence, transience, selectivity and high degree of destruction of objects, speed of maneuver by troops (forces) and fire, and the use of various mobile groupings of troops (forces). Mastering strategic initiative, maintaining stable state and military control, ensuring superiority on land, sea and in aerospace will be decisive factors in achieving the goals. There will be advance implementation of information warfare activities to achieve political goals without the use of military force, and subsequently, in the interests of forming a favorable reaction from the world community, a decision to use military force.

Military operations will be characterized by the increasing importance of high-precision, electromagnetic, laser, infrasonic weapons, information and control systems, unmanned aerial vehicles and autonomous marine vehicles, controlled robotic weapons and military equipment.

Nuclear weapons, on the one hand, will remain an important factor in preventing the emergence of nuclear military conflicts and military conflicts using conventional weapons (large-scale war, regional war). But in the event of a large-scale or regional war that threatens the very existence of the state, the possession of nuclear weapons can lead to the escalation of such a military conflict into a nuclear military conflict.

Most likely closest them consequences mi military conflicts are :

Death, injury, illness;

Environmental pollution;

Massive psychological information impact;

Violation of control systems;

Destruction of life support systems for the population;

Economic paralysis.

The long-term consequences of military conflicts are environmental, economic, health, social and demographic consequences.

Environmental consequences manifest themselves in the form of an environmental crisis . For example, the large-scale use of chemicals by American troops during the Second Indochina War (1961-1975) led to dire consequences. Mangrove forests (500 thousand hectares) were almost completely destroyed, 60% (about 1 million hectares) of the jungle and 30% (more than 100 thousand hectares) of lowland forests were affected. Since 1960, rubber plantation yields have declined by 75%. American troops destroyed from 40 to 100% of the crops of bananas, rice, sweet potatoes, papaya, tomatoes, 70% of coconut plantations, 60% of hevea, 110 thousand hectares of casuarina plantations. In the affected areas, out of 150 bird species, 18 remained, amphibians and insects almost completely disappeared, the number of fish in the rivers decreased and their composition changed. The microbiological composition of the soil was disrupted and plants were poisoned. The number of species of trees and shrubs in the tropical rainforest has sharply decreased: in the affected areas only a few species of trees and several types of thorny grasses, unsuitable for livestock feed, remain. Changes in the fauna of Vietnam resulted in the displacement of one species of black rat by other species that are carriers of plague in South and Southeast Asia. Ticks that carry dangerous diseases have appeared in the species composition of ticks. Similar changes have occurred in the species composition of mosquitoes: instead of harmless endemic mosquitoes, mosquitoes that carry malaria have appeared.

Economic consequences – This is primarily poverty and hunger.

Medical consequences manifest themselves in the form of disability for amputees and other victims, long-term consequences of combat head injuries, post-traumatic chronic alcohol addiction, drug addiction, consequences of mental trauma, and all kinds of psychological consequences.

Social consequences in the form of aggravation of national hatred, deformation of family culture and other negative manifestations are a consequence of any armed conflict.

Demographic implications manifest themselves in a sharp decrease in the share of the male population and subsequent waves of decline in the birth rate.

For the period from 1945 to the beginning of the 21st century. There have been more than 500 local wars and armed conflicts in the world. They not only influenced the formation of relations between countries directly in conflict zones, but also affected the politics and economy of many countries around the world. According to many political scientists, the likelihood of new local wars and armed conflicts not only remains, but is also increasing. In this regard, the study of the reasons for their occurrence, methods of unleashing them, experience in preparing and conducting combat operations, and the peculiarities of military art in them acquires particularly relevant significance.

The term “local war” refers to a war involving two or more states within the borders of their territories, limited in purpose and scope from the point of view of the interests of the great powers. Local wars, as a rule, are waged with the direct or indirect support of major powers, which can use them to achieve their own political goals.

An armed conflict is an armed conflict of a limited scale between states (international armed conflict) or opposing parties within the territory of one state (internal armed conflict). In armed conflicts, war is not declared and no transition to wartime is carried out. An international armed conflict can develop into a local war, and an internal armed conflict into a civil war.

The largest local wars of the 2nd half of the 20th century, which had a significant impact on the development of military affairs, include: the Korean War (1950-1953), the Vietnam War (1964-1975), the Indo-Pakistani War (1971), Arab-Israeli wars, the war in Afghanistan (1979-1989), the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), the Gulf War (1991), the wars in Yugoslavia and Iraq.

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF LOCAL WARS AND ARMED CONFLICTS

Korean War (1950-1953)

IN August 1945 The Red Army liberated the northern part of Korea from the Japanese occupiers. The part of the peninsula south of the 38th parallel was occupied by American troops. In the future, it was planned to create a unified Korean state. The Soviet Union withdrew its troops from North Korean territory in 1948. However, the United States continued the policy of dividing this country. In August 1948, a pro-American government headed by Syngman Rhee was formed in South Korea. In the north of the country, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was proclaimed in the fall of the same year. The governments of both the DPRK and South Korea believed that the creation of a united state under their authority was possible only by destroying the hostile regime in another part of Korea. Both countries began to actively create and expand their armed forces.

By the summer of 1950, the size of the South Korean army reached 100 thousand people. It was armed with 840 guns and mortars, 1.9 thousand Bazooka anti-tank rifles and 27 armored vehicles. In addition, this army had 20 combat aircraft and 79 naval ships.

The Korean People's Army (KPA) consisted of 10 rifle divisions, a tank brigade and a motorcycle regiment. It had 1.6 thousand guns and mortars, 258 tanks, 172 combat aircraft.

The American-South Korean war plan was to encircle and destroy the main forces of the KPA in the areas of Pyongyang and south of Wonsan by attacking ground forces from the front and landing troops in the rear, after which, developing an offensive to the north, reach the border with China .

Their actions were ready to support 3 American infantry and 1 armored divisions, a separate infantry regiment and a regimental combat group that were part of the 8th US Army, which were based in Japan.

At the beginning of May 1950, the government of the DPRK received reliable information about the impending aggression. With the help of a group of Soviet military advisers, a military action plan was developed, which included repelling enemy attacks and then launching a counteroffensive. The USSR provided North Korea with material assistance, including equipment and heavy weapons. The advance deployment of troops along the 38th parallel made it possible to achieve a balance of forces and assets that was favorable for the KPA. The transition of the KPA troops to the offensive on June 25, 1950 is considered by many historians as a necessary measure in connection with numerous military provocations by South Korea.

Military operations in the Korean War can be divided into four periods.

1st period (June 25 - September 14, 1950). On the morning of June 25, 1950, the KPA went on the offensive. Under US pressure and in the absence of a Soviet representative, the UN Security Council authorized the creation of UN troops to “repel aggression.” On July 5, units of the 8th American Army under the UN flag entered into battle against the KPA. Enemy resistance increased. Despite this, the KPA troops continued their successful offensive and advanced 250-350 km southward in 1.5 months.

The dominance of American aviation in the air forced the KPA command to increasingly switch to night operations, which negatively affected the pace of the offensive. By August 20, the KPA offensive was stopped at the turn of the river. Naktong. The enemy managed to retain the Busan bridgehead in the south of the Korean Peninsula.

2nd period (September 15 - October 24, 1950). By mid-September, the enemy had transferred up to 6 American divisions and a British brigade to the Busan bridgehead. The balance of power changed in his favor. The 8th American Army alone consisted of 14 infantry divisions, 2 brigades, up to 500 tanks, over 1.6 thousand guns and mortars, and more than 1 thousand aircraft. The plan of the American command was to encircle and destroy the main forces of the KPA by striking troops from the Busan bridgehead and landing an amphibious assault in the Incheon area.

The operation began on September 15 with an amphibious landing behind KPA lines. On September 16, troops from the Busan bridgehead went on the offensive. They managed to break through the KPA defenses and develop an offensive to the north. On October 23, the enemy captured Pyongyang. On the west coast, American troops managed to reach the Korean-Chinese border by the end of October. Their further advance was delayed by the stubborn defense of KPA units together with partisans operating behind enemy lines.

3rd period (October 25, 1950 - July 9, 1951). Since October 19, 1950, Chinese People's Volunteers (CPV) took part in hostilities on the side of the DPRK. On October 25, the advanced units of the KPA and CPV launched a counterattack on the enemy. Developing the offensive that had begun successfully, the KPA and CPV troops cleared the entire territory of North Korea of the enemy in 8 months of hostilities. Attempts by the American and South Korean troops to launch a new offensive in the first half of 1951 did not lead to success. In July 1951, the front stabilized along the 38th parallel, and the warring parties began peace negotiations.

4th period (July 10, 1951 - July 27, 1953). The American command repeatedly disrupted negotiations and began hostilities again. Enemy aircraft carried out massive attacks on North Korean rear targets and troops. However, as a result of the active resistance and tenacity of the KPA and CPV troops in defense, the enemy’s next offensive attempts were not successful.

had. The firm position of the USSR, heavy losses of UN troops and growing demands from the world community to end the war led to the signing of a ceasefire agreement on July 27, 1953.

As a result, the war ended where it began - on the 38th parallel, along which the border between North and South Korea ran. One of the important military-political results of the war was that the United States and its allies, despite all their enormous potential, were unable to win a war with a much less technically equipped enemy, such as the North Korean army and Chinese volunteers.

Vietnam War (1964-1975)

The Vietnam War was one of the largest and longest armed conflicts after the Second World War. Victory over the French colonialists in the War of Independence in 1945-1954. created favorable conditions for the peaceful unification of the Vietnamese people. However, this did not happen. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) was created in the northern part of Vietnam. A pro-American government was formed in South Vietnam, which, using US military and economic assistance, began hastily creating its own army. By the end of 1958, it consisted of 150 thousand people and more than 200 thousand were in paramilitary forces. Using these forces, the South Vietnamese regime began punitive operations against the national patriotic forces of South Vietnam. In response to repressive measures, the Vietnamese people launched an active guerrilla war. The fighting covered the entire territory of the country. The DRV provided the rebels with comprehensive assistance. By mid-1964, 2/3 of the country's territory was already under the control of partisans.

To save its ally, the US government decided to switch to direct military intervention in South Vietnam. Taking advantage of the collision of American ships with torpedo boats of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin as an occasion, US aircraft began systematic bombing of the territory of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam on August 5, 1964. Large contingents of American troops were deployed to South Vietnam.

The course of the armed struggle in Vietnam can be divided into 3 periods: the first (August 5, 1964 - November 1, 1968) - the period of escalation of American military intervention; the second (November 1968 - January 27, 1973) - the period of gradual winding down of the scale of the war; third (January 28, 1973 - May 1, 1975) - the period of the final blows of patriotic forces and the end of the war.

The plan of the American command provided for air strikes on the most important objects of the DRV and communications of the South Vietnamese partisans, isolating them from

incoming assistance, block and destroy. Units of American infantry, the latest equipment and weapons began to be transferred to South Vietnam. Subsequently, the number of American troops in South Vietnam constantly increased and amounted to: in 1965 - 155 thousand, in 1966 - 385.3 thousand, in 1967 - 485.8 thousand, in 1968 - 543 thousand people.

In 1965-1966 The American command launched a major offensive with the aim of capturing important points in Central Vietnam and pushing the partisans into the mountainous, wooded and sparsely populated areas of the country. However, this plan was thwarted by the maneuverable and active actions of the Liberation Army. The air war against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam also ended in failure. Having strengthened the air defense system with anti-aircraft weapons (mainly Soviet anti-aircraft guided missiles), the anti-aircraft gunners of the DRV inflicted significant damage on enemy aircraft. Over 4 years, over 3 thousand American combat aircraft were shot down over the territory of North Vietnam.

In 1968-1972 Patriotic forces carried out three large-scale offensives, during which areas with a population of over 2.5 million people were liberated. Saigon and American troops suffered heavy losses and were forced to go on the defensive.

In 1970-1971 The flames of war spread to the states neighboring Vietnam - Cambodia and Laos. The purpose of the invasion of American-Saigon troops was to cut the Indochina Peninsula in two, isolate South Vietnamese patriots from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and strangle the national liberation movement in this region. However, the aggression failed. Having encountered decisive resistance and suffered heavy losses, the interventionists withdrew their troops from the territories of these two states. At the same time, the American command began a gradual withdrawal of its troops from South Vietnam, shifting the brunt of the fight to the troops of the Saigon regime.

The successful actions of the air defense of the DRV and the South Vietnamese partisans, as well as the demands of the world community, forced the United States to sign on January 27, 1973, an Agreement to end the participation of its armed forces in the Vietnam War. In total, up to 2.6 million American soldiers and officers took part in this war. American troops were armed with over 5 thousand combat aircraft and helicopters, 2.5 thousand guns, and hundreds of tanks. According to American data, the United States lost about 60 thousand people killed, over 300 thousand people wounded, over 8.6 thousand planes and helicopters and a large amount of other military equipment in Vietnam.

In 1975, the DRV troops and partisans completed the defeat of the Saigon army and on May 1 captured Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam. The puppet regime has fallen. The heroic 30-year struggle of the Vietnamese people for independence ended in complete victory. In 1976, the DRV and the Republic of South Vietnam formed a single state - the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The main military-political results of the war were that the powerlessness of the most modern military power against the people fighting for their national liberation was again revealed. After its defeat in Vietnam, the United States lost much of its influence in Southeast Asia.

The small victorious war, which was supposed to calm down revolutionary sentiments in society, is still regarded by many as aggression on the part of Russia, but few people look into history textbooks and know that it was Japan that unexpectedly began military action.

The results of the war were very, very sad - the loss of the Pacific fleet, the lives of 100 thousand soldiers and the phenomenon of complete mediocrity, both of the tsarist generals and the royal dynasty itself in Russia.

2. First World War (1914-1918)

A long-brewing conflict between the leading world powers, the first large-scale war, which revealed all the shortcomings and backwardness of Tsarist Russia, which entered the war without even completing rearmament. The Entente allies were frankly weak, and only heroic efforts and talented commanders at the end of the war made it possible to begin to tip the scales towards Russia.

However, society did not need the “Brusilovsky breakthrough”; it needed change and bread. Not without the help of German intelligence, the revolution was accomplished and peace was achieved, under very difficult conditions for Russia.

3. Civil War (1918-1922)

The troubled times of the twentieth century for Russia continued. The Russians defended themselves against the occupying countries, brother went against brother, and in general these four years were one of the most difficult, on par with the Second World War. It makes no sense to describe these events in such material, and military operations took place only on the territory of the former Russian Empire.

4. The fight against Basmachism (1922-1931)

Not everyone accepted the new government and collectivization. The remnants of the White Guard found refuge in Fergana, Samarkand and Khorezm, easily incited the dissatisfied Basmachi to resist the young Soviet army and could not calm them down until 1931.

In principle, this conflict, again, cannot be regarded as external, because it was an echo of the Civil War, “White Sun of the Desert” will help you.

Under Tsarist Russia, the CER was an important strategic object of the Far East, simplified the development of wild areas and was jointly managed by China and Russia. In 1929, the Chinese decided that it was time to take away the railway and adjacent territories from the weakened USSR.

However, the Chinese group, which was 5 times larger in number, was defeated near Harbin and in Manchuria.

6. Providing international military assistance to Spain (1936-1939)

500 Russian volunteers went to fight the nascent fascist and General Franco. The USSR also supplied about a thousand units of ground and air combat equipment and about 2 thousand guns to Spain.

Reflecting Japanese aggression near Lake Khasan (1938) and fighting near the Khalkin-Gol River (1939)

The defeat of the Japanese by small forces of Soviet border guards and subsequent major military operations were again aimed at protecting the state border of the USSR. By the way, after the Second World War, 13 military commanders were executed in Japan for starting the conflict at Lake Khasan.

7. Campaign in Western Ukraine and Western Belarus (1939)

The campaign was aimed at protecting the borders and preventing military action from Germany, which had already openly attacked Poland. The Soviet Army, oddly enough, during the fighting, repeatedly encountered resistance from both Polish and German forces.

Unconditional aggression on the part of the USSR, which hoped to expand the northern territories and cover Leningrad, cost the Soviet army very heavy losses. Having spent 1.5 years instead of three weeks on combat operations, and received 65 thousand killed and 250 thousand wounded, the USSR moved the border and provided Germany with a new ally in the coming war.

9. Great Patriotic War (1941-1945)

The current rewrites of history textbooks shout about the insignificant role of the USSR in the victory over fascism and the atrocities of Soviet troops in the liberated territories. However, reasonable people still consider this great feat to be a war of liberation, and advise at least looking at the monument to the Soviet soldier-liberator, erected by the people of Germany.

10. Fighting in Hungary: 1956

The entry of Soviet troops to maintain the communist regime in Hungary was undoubtedly a show of force in the Cold War. The USSR showed the whole world that it would use extremely cruel measures to protect its geopolitical interests.

11. Events on Damansky Island: March 1969

The Chinese again took up the old ways, but 58 border guards and the Grad UZO defeated three companies of Chinese infantry and discouraged the Chinese from contesting the border territories.

12. Fighting in Algeria: 1962-1964.

Assistance with volunteers and weapons to the Algerians who fought for independence from France again confirmed the growing sphere of interests of the USSR.

This will be followed by a list of combat operations involving Soviet military instructors, pilots, volunteers, and other reconnaissance groups. Undoubtedly, all these facts are interference in the affairs of another state, but in essence they are a response to exactly the same interference from the United States, England, France, Great Britain, Japan, etc. Here is a list of the largest arenas of confrontation in the Cold War.

13. Fighting in the Yemen Arab Republic: from October 1962 to March 1963; from November 1967 to December 1969
14. Combat in Vietnam: from January 1961 to December 1974
15. Fighting in Syria: June 1967: March - July 1970; September - November 1972; March - July 1970; September - November 1972; October 1973
16. Fighting in Angola: from November 1975 to November 1979
17. Fighting in Mozambique: 1967-1969; from November 1975 to November 1979
18. Fighting in Ethiopia: from December 1977 to November 1979
19. War in Afghanistan: from December 1979 to February 1989
20. Fighting in Cambodia: from April to December 1970
22. Fighting in Bangladesh: 1972-1973. (for personnel of ships and auxiliary vessels of the USSR Navy).
23. Fighting in Laos: from January 1960 to December 1963; from August 1964 to November 1968; from November 1969 to December 1970
24. Fighting in Syria and Lebanon: July 1982

25. Deployment of troops into Czechoslovakia 1968

The “Prague Spring” was the last direct military intervention in the affairs of another state in the history of the USSR, which received loud condemnation, including in Russia. The “swan song” of the powerful totalitarian government and the Soviet Army turned out to be cruel and short-sighted and only accelerated the collapse of the Department of Internal Affairs and the USSR.

26. Chechen wars (1994-1996, 1999-2009)

A brutal and bloody civil war in the North Caucasus happened again at a time when the new government was weak and was just gaining strength and rebuilding the army. Despite the coverage of these wars in the Western media as aggression on the part of Russia, most historians view these events as the Russian Federation’s struggle for the integrity of its territory.

Famous wars of the 20th century. Russia in the wars of the 20th century. Brief overview of local wars and armed conflicts