Alec Grape's foundations of the theory of war. Fundamentals of the general theory of war and the foundations of a new geopolitical ethics
Alexander Vladimirov has more than 30 years of practical experience behind him. military service in command and staff positions, he rose to the rank of major general and the position of chief of staff of the combined arms army.
The foundation of his military career was the deep military knowledge acquired at universities, including the Academy of the General Staff. General Vladimirov was richly gifted by fate from a young age, starting from the Suvorov Military School, where for seven years he was raised to be a convinced patriot, and successful practical service in deployed units and a diverse education received at three higher military institutions made him an extraordinary personality - an outstanding professional, prominent scientist and strategist.
General Staff in the singular
In confirmation - the statement of the President of the AVN, Army General Makhmut Gareev: “I suggest our authorities to listen carefully to what he says and writes, because General Vladimirov, having a unique gift of insight into the essence of things, systemic thinking and strategic foresight, with his ideas and works significantly ahead of our current external and domestic policy, and the “reaction time” of the authorities, that is, the time when his ideas begin to be in demand by the official state authorities, is calculated in many years...” This opinion is all the more valuable because it was expressed by a participant in the Great Patriotic War, a scientist known for his integrity and objectivity, a military leader and an outstanding organizer of the Russian military science, who for many years was Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces.
“ “I was at his exercises and saw the general in action, he is a General Staff in his own right.”
The famous Soviet military intelligence officer and Russian political scientist, economist and expert in the field of defense and security Vitaly Shlykov wrote in the preface to the first edition of the monograph about meeting Alexander Vladimirov: “We met like this. In 1988, the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev, expressed a desire to create a governing body similar to the US National Security Council, and various government departments received appropriate orders to work out this idea ( It’s strange that Gorbachev could even have a theoretical idea about strengthening the country’s security while practical actions led to the destruction of the state. – L. Sh.).
The work did not proceed for a long time, and ultimately this matter was entrusted to us, that is, to me, an intelligence officer who knew the subject, language and country, and to the head of the Analytical Directorate of the KGB of the USSR, Vladimir Arsentievich Rubanov. When we started working, we both had the idea to include in our group someone who understood the issues of the Armed Forces. Since, due to the specifics of our service, we both did not have serious personal acquaintances in the army, I made a request to the Chief of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces, later Advisor to the President of the USSR, Marshal Soviet Union Sergei Fedorovich Akhromeyev. In response to my question and request to find an intelligent officer to participate in working group According to the USSR Security Council, Marshal Akhromeyev responded instantly: “I know such a smart guy. This is the chief of staff of the 28th combined arms Grodno Army of the Belarusian Military District, Major General Alexander Vladimirov.” When I expressed the opinion that, perhaps, we should take someone not from the troops, but directly from the General Staff, the marshal said that we didn’t need anything better, since: “I was at his training and saw the general in in fact, he is the General Staff in himself.”
Continuing the conversation about Vladimirov’s fundamental work, I would like to emphasize: this is, first of all, the result of many years of titanic work of his mind, soul and enormous physical effort, since the amount of studied, processed and meaningful material is colossal. Vladimirov did what, it seems, only large scientific teams can do, and Marshal Akhromeyev turned out to be right - he is the General Staff on his own.
I refer to the statements of major military leaders and military experts not in order to raise the bar for the significance of the three-volume work, but because the range of topics is so wide and multifaceted, the volume of material is so enormous that it is impossible for one person to evaluate it. The author has made significant strides in summarizing the centuries-old experience of the best representatives of military thought, studying and analyzing their works in order to understand and reveal the essence modern theory war. He has more than 700 references and footnotes alone. Vladimirov speaks quite cogently and objectively about the modern world order and possible war.
Even a review, worked out in full, can qualify for a significant abstract or something more if a team of professionals gets down to business. My goal is much more modest - to attract the attention of the Supreme High Command, specialists up to and including the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, its academy, the Security Council of the Russian Federation and the structures responsible for developing strategic approaches and patriotic education. It is appropriate to emphasize that the monograph places special emphasis on the training of personnel, both military and civilian, who occupy high positions and influence the defense capability and defense of the state.
We can agree that not all conclusions and recommendations are indisputable. But this thorough work, of course, is subject to careful study, research, comprehension and should serve as the subject of discussion at all kinds of conferences, “ round tables"and seminars.
With appropriate preparation on the part of the author, the monograph can be revised and used as a textbook for various specialists. Of course, they don’t have to study the entire 3,000-page work, but I’m sure that there will be a lot in it for responsible, national leaders. useful information for reflection and work for the results of which they are responsible.
With a deep revision of the first edition of the monograph and the clarifications made, “The General Theory of War” acquired a stable three-part form. The first part is “Fundamentals of the theory of war.” The second is “The Theory of National Strategy. Fundamentals of the theory, practice and art of government.” The third is “State, war and army: some issues of general theory.” All thematically defined parts of the monograph have acquired conceptual completeness, their own set of applications, and in this form can be widely used in educational practice as separate volumes. All parts contain interesting, often exclusive and voluminous additional reference data in the materials of important remarks and applications, which can be used by students and teachers as a single encyclopedic source on the proposed topic. Thus, the second edition of “Fundamentals of the General Theory of War” can become basic and subject to study in the system of higher military and civil education and public service in the Russian Federation. The monograph examines war as the main problem of humanity, as a phenomenon of our existence that accompanies us throughout the history of civilization. General Vladimirov relies on the works of many foreign military philosophers and scientists and pays due attention to Russian professionals, which is completely uncharacteristic of modern scientific thought. What is especially important is that it is our military celebrities who build the modern theory of war and its features in the period of globalization. This is a great merit of the author, who, using their potential, reasonably and convincingly predicts the nature and conditions of the outbreak of a future war. He pays special attention to the works of the outstanding Russian military theorist Alexander Svechin and, above all, the famous work “Strategy”. Vladimirov focuses on the works of the Russian military philosopher Andrei Snesarev, whom he considers the most subtle and profound researcher of the essence of war and cites his three important conclusions. They are undeniable to this day: 1. In its content, war has become an all-encompassing, all-pervasive and deeply dramatic phenomenon in the life of peoples and remains inevitable for the foreseeable future. 2. Wars indicate great and dangerous shortcomings in the organization of human society and the powerlessness of the human mind. 3. The solution to the question of the future (coming) of the war - positive or negative - remains for now a matter of faith, and not a scientifically proven fact. (A.E. Snesarev “Philosophy of War”). The author considers it necessary to highlight the unique creativity of Colonel of the General Staff of the Russian Imperial Army Eugene Messner, a seer and classic of strategic military thought, who defined most of the modern categories of philosophy and theory of war. Messner was the first to define terror as a form of war and brilliantly predicted: “We must stop thinking that war is when one fights, and peace is when one does not fight. You can be at war without fighting.” But of all the heritage cited by the author, the most significant and absolutely strategic, according to Vladimirov’s definition, is the work of Samuel Huntington “The Clash of Civilizations and the Restructuring of the World Order,” which is a brilliant example of deep strategic foresight. There is also significant scientific interest in the insight into the work of representatives of the Russian military emigration, which was almost unknown in our country before the publication of the monograph. The value of General Vladimirov’s work lies in its deep scientific character, which is confirmed by the logic of reasoning, evidence, persuasiveness and clarity, since the work is written in good Russian. Lenin, while in Swiss emigration in 1916–1917, read the main book of Carl von Clausewitz, “On War,” in the Zurich cantonal library. In its margins and in Vladimir Ilyich’s working documents, numerous extracts and comments made by him during the reading have been preserved. Later, Lenin often quoted Clausewitz, calling him one of the great and profound writers on military issues, whose basic thoughts have now become the unconditional acquisition of every thinking person. These remarks on the work of Clausewitz and other authors on military issues were included in the 12th “Lenin Collection”, published in 1933 and 1939 as a pamphlet, and subsequently included in the complete works of the leader of the revolution. It is not surprising that after such Leninist “PR”, a respectful attitude towards Clausewitz was characteristic of all works on the history and theory of military art in the Soviet Union, starting from the 20s. In 1934, Clausewitz’s three-volume book “On War” was published in Moscow, and this work took a prominent place in all military academies of the Soviet Union, and together with the personal notes of Lenin and Stalin, it eventually formed the basis of the “Marxist-Leninist doctrine of war” - a compulsory subject in all military educational institutions. And today this book is in all libraries of all military vocational training institutions of the Fatherland, starting with the Suvorov schools. Unfortunately, many senior leaders have settled on understanding war based only on the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of war. And from the works of military classics, we are at best familiar with Clausewitz’s work “On War.” As a rule, we extract from it only one thought: “War is the continuation of politics by other means,” implying only armed struggle. I really want them to not only pick up General Vladimirov’s monograph, but also go through its pages, at least diagonally, and set subordinate structures and leading specialists the task of comprehending all the material, developing a report to managers and preparing textbooks and teaching aids on aspects of the general theory war, which was formed, developed and talentedly written by our compatriot. There is no doubt that this will help them understand the main idea and three axioms: “The state wages war, the army fights in the war, and the population fights” and each component must be able to do this, otherwise there will be no victory. In modern conditions, the goal of victory is defined much more strictly - to be a country or not. And not otherwise. And it is not necessary to go to Switzerland to understand the meaning and purpose of modern war; it is enough to delve into, read General Vladimirov’s monograph and organize its study and practical actions at all levels. The monograph is worth it. P.S. Major General Vladimirov lives with his wife, daughter and son in a small apartment inherited from his mother with a total area of 36.7, and a living area of 21.8 square meters, that is, a little more than five square meters per person, with a sanitary norm of eight square meters. He was dismissed for health reasons in 1992 at the age of 47, at a difficult time for the country and the army. No one was particularly interested in his living conditions then. Has every reason to improve living conditions. He has been standing in line at the prefecture of the Southern District of Moscow for 22 years. The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation does not appear on the housing register. There was no response to a letter from former Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov to Vladimir Putin asking for a solution to the housing problem of Alexander Vladimirov and a presidential resolution to Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov “Report proposals”. Major General Vladimirov, who has worn shoulder straps since the age of 11 and has served impeccably for 30 years in the country's Armed Forces, is accustomed to everything. But he is very ashamed of his wife and two adult children, who are long past the age when they sleep “jack” or, as in the barracks, on a bunk bed. He deserved, I emphasize, deserved (he was wounded in Vietnam) more civilized living conditions for himself and his family. I am appealing, through the respected newspaper “Military-Industrial Courier,” to the leadership of the capital (Alexander Ivanovich Vladimirov is a native Muscovite) and the current Minister of Defense with a request to resolve the housing issue. It's a shame for the State! LECTURE (abstract) FUNDAMENTALS OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF WAR INTRODUCTION WAR AND ITS NATURE It seems to us that in the theory of war, the main subject of study is the war itself, its essence and nature; all other development of the theory should follow precisely from precise certainties in the understanding of these basic things. In order to be able to give a new or different point of view on war, we considered it necessary, in thesis form, to consider “war” as a phenomenon and phenomenon of the existence of society and bring our views on one of the main issues of the theory - on the essence of war as its nature. The Large Encyclopedic Dictionary gives us the following definitions of these concepts: « Phenomenon:(from the Greek phainomenon - appearing), 1) an unusual phenomenon, a rare fact. 2) Philosophical concept, meaning a phenomenon comprehended in sensory experience. In relation to the topic of the work, we can safely say: 1. Historically, various parts of society specially organized war and introduced it into the practice of all national cultures and states of all times and peoples, despite the fact that each part of society solves its own problems with war. 2. The totality of wars and their results actually and objectively determine a series of valuable choices of subjects of society, which in turn determine their further historical fate. 3. The totality of valuable choices of nations and other subjects of society historically shape the appearance of humanity and determine the foundations of its existence as a whole. ^
4. Thus, war became an integral part of the existence of humanity and its specific feature, which it will remain as long as humanity exists.
5. War is a factor that determines the future of humanity, and in this regard plays a vital role in the life of Humanity. 6. War has firmly become a part of the worldview of all levels and parts of human society, including as a way (means) to overcome or maintain inequality between them. These conclusions are not new. Nevertheless, we are supporters of that idea and are inclined to believe that war is an immanent form of human society’s existence, which manifests itself more fully and on a larger scale, the larger and more developed the human society itself or part of it is. The great Russian philosopher Lev Aleksandrovich Tikhomirov wrote: “...in nothing that affects the very idea of their existence, great nations can be reconciled. If a clash occurs at a point that affects the worldwide role of a great nation, it will yield only to force, and even then to obvious, proven force, having become convinced of the impossibility of fighting at the moment and with a hidden determination to certainly take its revenge. And that is why war is inevitable until one of the great nations turns out to be the greatest in this historical competition, strong enough to subjugate the entire globe to its hegemony, creating some (fair, of course, and to a certain extent federal) state , but, in any case, one in which there will be some master, supporting universal peace with the height and power of his idea. ^
Such a future peace is most often led by war and least often by agreements
. This is the law of human and social nature that has always operated in history and will remain in it forever. War, therefore, has a very deep meaning, which makes obligatory respect not for murder, but for the historical role of force. This historical role of force should not be forgotten by any nation that has a historical role, a mission, as they say. Small, ahistorical peoples can live, forgetting the meaning of war: anyway, it is not they who will arrange humanity, but someone else who will arrange them themselves. But every nation that has been given universal content must be strong, strong, and must not forget for a minute that the idea of truth contained in it constantly requires the existence of a force protecting it. War as an armed defense of this national idea, as an instrument of its dissemination and affirmation, is and will be a necessary phenomenon, a phenomenon without which, under certain conditions, neither the life of the nation nor the final triumph of that universal human idea, which as a result will turn out to be the greatest, most unifying, most capable give peace to the nations" 2. The outstanding military theorist and Russian military philosopher (combat general of the Russian Army and the first head of the Academy of the General Staff of the Red Army) Andrei Snesarev, in his lecture course “Philosophy of War” notes: “... war is a complex phenomenon, difficult to understand, not easily amenable to both moral and scientific criteria ..." "If from the state of continuous war that we have experienced and are still experiencing, you turn to the past, you will see that war is a constant and unchanging companion of humanity, and not only from that distant moment when it remembers itself, but endlessly earlier than the beginning of universal human cultural life.” “...judging by the traces that humanity of each of these periods left behind, it always fought, fought relentlessly and stubbornly; fought according to the same laws of necessity by which it fed, multiplied, rose up the difficult steps of progress..."... “Indeed, history will answer some questions related to the war, in some way: it will confirm its constancy, indicate the nature of its evolution, connect the war with other factors of history, perhaps hint at its inevitability, but it will far from exhausting its complexity -th content. But if people constantly fought, if they are fighting to this day, then states must include this formidable phenomenon in the circle of their understanding and vision, must take into account - already for reasons of vital caution - its inevitability, and from here - create a number of political, financial measures , administrative, etc., arising from the powerful oppression that war imposes on modern states. From the past to the present, you will see that war dominates the people's life and the structure of the state, controls the church and school, absorbs a huge share of the people's labor, in a word, leads the state along a certain path. Here is a picture of a new understanding of war, understanding from a state angle. An explanation of the war would be one-sided if its state interpretation and meaning were omitted” 3. There are many formulations and interpretations of the concept of “war,” despite the fact that each of them has its own grain of truth. Let us begin to illustrate this thesis with encyclopedic interpretations of “war.” It seems important to us to provide interpretations of the concepts of “war” given in the best encyclopedia of Russia by Brockhaus and Efron in 1907. « War- armed struggle between states, peoples or hostile parties in the same state, taking place in the form of restoration, preservation or acquisition of disputed rights and interests, in a word - to force one side to submit to the will of the other. The entire history of peoples is presented in the form of a continuous history; the latter is, as it were, their normal state, and the short intervals of peace between the long periods of V. are, as it were, truce, which would be more correct to consider the same V., because even then the basis of international relations is not brotherly love and mutual trust, but fear and distrust. So, eternal War is what the history of mankind still gives in return eternal peace, about which philosophers and moralists dream. ^ In the vanquished it gives rise to a vengeful feeling, sometimes increasing to ferocity. Winners, having become detached from the correct, gradual course of the people's work, they begin to exaggerate the importance of their power and their national wealth, increased by military acquisitions - they are inclined to reckless enterprises and waste their strength until a general crisis in business brings them back to the path of peaceful labor and reasonable frugality. ^ War Apologists indicate that struggle underlies everything that lives; all the forces of nature are in constant struggle among themselves, striving to create something new and more perfect by destroying the old and outdated. This seems to be the fundamental law of nature. Humanity, being part of it, is subject to the same law in its activities. ^
Wars happen folk or government,
depending on whether warfare is carried out for the sake of the interests of an entire people or because of the personal views and claims of the ruler of the state. ^
According to the reasons that caused V., it is called conquest, religious, trade, for independence, for succession to the throne, internecine and so on
.» 4
In the Great Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius, “War” has the following interpretation: "War, organized armed struggle between states, nations (peoples), social groups. In war, armed forces are used as the main and decisive means, as well as economic, political, ideological and other means of struggle. A war between social groups within a country for state power is called a civil war. Over the past 5.5 thousand years there have been about 14.5 thousand large and small wars (including two world wars), during which St. died, died of epidemics and famine. 3.6 billion people. In modern conditions, due to the end of the Cold War, the danger of a global nuclear war has decreased. However, the so-called local wars are military conflicts related to religious, territorial and national disputes, tribal strife, etc. The international community and the UN strive to create a system of relations between states that excludes the threat of force and its use” 5 . A study of the subject revealed the fact that virtually every author who has ever studied or written about war has given "war." as a phenomenon, its own assessment and interpretation, and that at present there is no unambiguous definition of the category “war”. ^
Some existing definitions of the category “war”
6
The outstanding military theorist and Russian military philosopher (combat general of the Russian Army and the first head of the Academy of the General Staff of the Red Army) Andrei Snesarev, in his lecture course “Philosophy of War” notes: “... war is a complex phenomenon, difficult to understand, not easily amenable to both moral and scientific criteria ..." "If from the state of continuous war that we have experienced and are still experiencing, you turn to the past, you will see that war is a constant and unchanging companion of humanity, and not only from that distant moment when it remembers itself, but endlessly earlier than the beginning of universal human cultural life.” “...judging by the traces that humanity of each of these periods left behind, it always fought, fought relentlessly and stubbornly; fought according to the same laws of necessity by which it fed, multiplied, rose up the difficult stages of progress..."... "Indeed, history will answer some questions related to war, somehow: it will confirm its constancy, will indicate the nature of its evolution, connect the war with other factors of history, perhaps hint at its inevitability, but will far from exhaust its complex content. But if people constantly fought, if they are fighting to this day, then states must include this formidable phenomenon in the circle of their understanding and vision, must take into account - already for reasons of vital caution - its inevitability, and from here - create a number of political, financial measures , administrative, etc., arising from the powerful oppression that war imposes on modern states. From the past to the present, you will see that war dominates the people's life and the structure of the state, controls the church and school, absorbs a huge share of the people's labor, in a word, leads the state along a certain path. Here is a picture of a new understanding of war, understanding from a state angle. An explanation of the war would be one-sided if its state interpretation and meaning were omitted” 21. It should be noted that an exhaustive definition of “war” is today an independent and complex scientific task. For example, even in the report of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation “Current tasks for the development of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation” 22, when formulating the essence of military conflicts and wars, the general definition of war was omitted. Currently, The concept of “war” is used to denote confrontation in many spheres of human existence. We constantly hear about “trade wars,” “economic wars,” or “information wars.” We believe that this trend is not accidental, since only the term “war” can be used to define the extreme degree of bitterness in relations between different subjects of geopolitical interactions operating in the same sphere, but with diametrically different goals. It is this bitterness that dictates to them a certain categorical military imperative of action to overcome enemy resistance and achieve their goals in this confrontation. In the fundamental work of the Department of Military History and Law of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, “Military History of Russia,” the scientific task of defining “war” has the following content: Firstly, the war is recognized as a historical phenomenon; Secondly, socio-political phenomenon; Thirdly, the form of functioning and development of society. It directly states the following: “...war is an integral side of human history, for it (war) as a socio-political phenomenon has several forms. It is both armed confrontation, and the state of society, and a way of regulating relations between the state and social forces, and a way of resolving disputes and contradictions between them. This means that wars perform certain functions in the history of mankind, for which it pays a very high price.” 23 As is known, since the time of K. Clausewitz 24 (and in Russia, at the instigation of V. Lenin), war has always been interpreted only as “... the continuation of state policy by other means,” and was meant only as an actual armed struggle. The axiomatic nature of this thesis (despite the fact that this formula rather fixes the relationship between politics and war than gives the formulation of the war itself) has never been disputed by military and political theory, although a deeper dive into its semantic semantics shows that this “axiom” itself has a reducing (simplifying) meaning, both for the concept of “politics” and for the concept of “war”, since it impoverishes both concepts and both spheres of social existence. It should be noted that this conflict was understood by our researchers. Thus, the modern military scientist V. Barynkin considers this collision in his works, 25 but he, ultimately, considers war to be an actually armed form of politics, and A. Kokoshin adheres to the same position 26 . A. Svechin believed that politics in war (which he understood as a special social phenomenon) had become an independent front of the war itself, and its role was not limited to target designation for strategy, since strategy had already outgrown the framework of the theory of “leading troops in the theater of war” 27 . V. Tsymbursky notes the evolution of the commanders’ views on war as follows: “The military leaders’ views on the relationship between strategy and politics, characteristic of this cycle, can be represented on the following scale. Clausewitz praises a “grandiose and powerful” policy that would produce such a war. For Moltke the Elder, politics most often binds and constrains strategy, however, strategy “works best in the hand of politics, for the purposes of the latter” in that it “directs its aspirations only to the highest goal that can generally be achieved with the available means.” " Therefore, strategy in some circumstances senses its true interests better than politics. And finally, as if at the opposite end of the scale from Clausewitz, E. Ludendorff appears with an opinion about politics as a continuation of total war, its instrument.” 28 Thus, if for K. Clausewitz war is an instrument (means) of politics, then We(following Ludendorff) We believe that politics is an instrument of war, just as its main means is armed struggle. The Russian military philosopher A. Snesarev, who is still the most subtle and profound researcher of the essence of war, as a result of his research made three important conclusions about war as a reality of human history, which remain undeniable today: 1. In terms of its content, war has become an all-encompassing, all-pervasive and deeply dramatic phenomenon in the life of peoples and remains inevitable for the foreseeable future; 2. Wars testify to great and dangerous shortcomings in the organization of human societies and the impotence of the human mind; 3. The solution to the question of the future (“coming”) of the war - positive or negative - remains for now a matter of faith, and not a scientifically proven fact. 29 In the “after Clausewitz” era, that is, today, modern sources available to us contain many pictures and models of future wars, each of which is interesting in its own way. But of all their number, the most significant and absolutely strategic works seem to us to be the works of S. Huntington “The Clash of Civilizations and the Restructuring of the World Order” 30, which is a brilliant example of deep strategic foresight, as well as the work of Russian military emigration, which is practically completely unknown among us . In particular, we consider it necessary to highlight the unique creativity of the Russian Imperial Army of the General Staff of Colonel Evgeniy Eduardovich Messner (1891-1974), in our deep conviction, a seer and an absolute classic of strategic military thought, who defined most of the modern categories of philosophy of war and theory of war. E. Messner was the first to define terror as a form of war and brilliantly predicted: “We must stop thinking that war is when one fights, and peace is when one does not fight. You can be at war without openly fighting... The modern form of war is rebellion. This is a deviation from the dogmas of classical military art. This is heresy. But rebellious warfare is a heretical war... Violence (intimidation and terror) and partisanship are the main “weapons” in this war... Now the regular army has lost its military monopoly; Along with it (and perhaps more than it) the irregular army is fighting, and underground organizations are supporting it... The war with partisans, saboteurs, terrorists, saboteurs, saboteurs, propagandists will take on enormous proportions in the future” 31 . I believe that what has been said is exhaustive and we can only admire the depth of analysis, brilliance of thought and talent of our compatriot. We have to state with regret that these brilliant insights of the Russian military classic are not known to both the Western and our domestic political and military leadership, and therefore are not appreciated, and therefore still do not have practical refraction in our military and political theory, and thus more in practice. All this suggests that the understanding of the phenomenon of war by scientific thought and society is ongoing and we can only make our contribution to this work. Thus, it can be stated that wars have largely shaped history, culture, and the modern existence of humanity, and therefore are part of it. Nevertheless, There is no established understanding of war as a phenomenon of existence yet. Despite the fact that various definitions of this category are due to the complexity of this phenomenon and the difficulty of covering all its content with one definition, the available definitions of “war” can be summarized into several groups: We know that war as a means or even a form of politics actually has as its main sphere the armed struggle itself (military action itself), which, in turn, has a system of its own laws, its own philosophy, its own military art, its own strategy and hierarchy of its own higher certainties. War, understood as armed struggle, has its own deep (ancient) history and a fairly complete set of attributes of the scientific apparatus. At the same time, to date, the laws of such war, as an independent part of military science, seem to us to be incompletely developed, as evidenced, for example, by the works of the Russian military scientist S. Tyushkevich 32 . In general, it seems obvious to us that war, understood as part of the existence of mankind, must have its own scale, its own philosophy, its own laws, its own military art and its own strategy, which we have defined as the theory, practice and art of statecraft, and its own hierarchy of higher certainties. It is this understanding of war, its philosophy and its strategy that we consider in this study, without touching on its actual military-armed form. Thus, we do not cancel or revise Clausewitz, we transfer the very subject of war to a higher level of generalization. We believe that the most important and fundamentally new aspect of the study is the departure from traditional interpretations of the concepts of “war”, “peace”, “strategy” and other basic concepts of the theory of war and the transfer of these concepts from the level of the armed struggle itself, to a higher level of generalization, with the formation corresponding theoretical foundations, which is actually the main idea of our work. ***
^
The essence is objective, the phenomenon is subjective..."
33
It seems to us that war as a phenomenon and part of the existence of society is phenomenal precisely by its essence, that is, by its nature and internal content. ^
The problem of the essence of war has always worried scientific thought, which, as the means and methods of war improved, looked for any changes in it.
The great Carl von Clausewitz is the first military scientist who brought military science to the level of an independent military theory and the only one of all who began his classic work “On War” with a chapter on its nature. In order to be able to give a new or different point of view on the war, we considered it necessary, in thesis form, to present it views on one of the main issues of the theory - the nature of war as its essence. ^
So, Carl von Clausewitz “On War”, Part One – The Nature of War, Chapter One – What is War?
« 2. Definition If we want to comprehend as one whole all the countless individual martial arts that make up war, then it is best to imagine a fight between two fighters. Each of them seeks, through physical violence, to force the other to carry out his will; his immediate goal is to crush the enemy and thereby render him incapable of any further resistance. So, war
- it is an act of violence intended to force the enemy to carry out our will Violence uses the inventions of the arts and the discoveries of the sciences to counteract violence. The subtle, scarcely worth mentioning restrictions which it imposes on itself in the form of customs of international law accompany violence without actually weakening its effect. Thus, physical violence (for moral violence has no concept of state and law) is a means, not a goal . The concept of the purpose of military action itself comes down to the latter. It obscures the purpose for which the war is waged and, to a certain extent, displaces it as something not directly related to the war itself. ^
2. Extreme use of violence
Some philanthropists may perhaps imagine that it is possible to artificially disarm and crush without much bloodshed, and that this is precisely what the art of war should gravitate towards. No matter how tempting such a thought may be, it nevertheless contains a misconception and should be dispelled. ^
War is a dangerous business, and delusions that have their source in good nature are the most destructive for it.
. The use of physical violence in its entirety in no way excludes the assistance of reason; therefore, the one who uses this violence, without hesitation and without sparing blood, acquires a huge advantage over the enemy who does not do this. Thus one prescribes law to another; both opponents strain their efforts to the last extreme; there are no other limits to this tension except those set by internal counteracting forces. ^
War comes from this social state of states and their relationships, it is determined by them, it is limited and moderated by them
. But all this does not relate to the true essence of the war and flows into the war from the outside. ^
The introduction of the principle of limitation and moderation into the philosophy of war itself is utter absurdity
. The struggle between people generally stems from two completely different elements: from hostile feeling and from hostile intentions. As an essential feature of our definition, we chose the second of these elements as more general. It is impossible to imagine even the most primitive, close to instinct, feeling of hatred without some kind of hostile intention; Meanwhile, hostile intentions often take place, not accompanied by absolutely any or, in any case, not associated with particularly outstanding feelings of hostility. Among savage peoples, intentions arising from emotion dominate, while among civilized peoples, intentions determined by reason prevail. Since war is an act of violence, it inevitably invades the realm of feeling. Even if the latter is not always its source, then war still gravitates more or less towards it, and this “more or less” depends not on the degree of civilization of the people, but on the importance and stability of the warring interests.” Extreme strain. Measure of reality. War is never an isolated act. War does not consist of one blow that has no extension in time. The outcome of the war does not seem to be something absolute. Real life displaces extremes and abstract concepts. The political goal is again brought to the fore. This does not yet explain the pauses in the development of the war. There can be only one reason for delaying action, and it would seem that only one side can always have it. Then there would be a continuity of military operations, which would again push towards extreme efforts. Here, therefore, the principle of polarity (diametrical opposition) is put forward. Attack and defense are phenomena of different kinds and unequal strength, so polarity does not apply to them. The actions of polarity are destroyed by the superiority of defense over offense, and this explains the pauses in the development of the war. The second reason is insufficient penetration into the situation. Frequent pauses in the development of military operations further remove war from the absolute and make it even more dependent on the situation. Thus, to turn war into a game, all that is needed is an element of chance, but it is never lacking. War turns into a game not only by its objective, but also by its subjective nature. In general, this often resonates with a person’s spiritual nature. War, however, always remains a serious means to achieve a serious goal. Its closest definition. War is not only a political act, but also a genuine instrument of politics, the continuation of political relations, their implementation by other means. ^
What is specific about war relates only to the nature of the means it uses.
. The art of war in general and the commander in each individual case have the right to demand that the direction and intentions of policy do not conflict with these means. Such a claim is of course important, but no matter how strongly in individual cases it influences political tasks, this influence should still be thought of only as modifying them, for the political task is the goal." Types of wars. All types of war can be considered political actions. The consequences of such a view for the understanding of military history and for the foundations of theory. So, war is not only a genuine chameleon, slightly changing its nature in each specific case; in its general appearance (in relation to the prevailing tendencies in it), war represents an amazing trinity, composed of violence, as its original element, hatred and enmity, which should be considered as blind natural instinct;
from the game of probabilities and chance, turning it into an arena free spiritual activity;
from its subordination as an instrument of politics, thanks to which it is subordinated pure reason
. The first of these 3 aspects mainly relates to the people, the second - more to the commander and his army, and the third - to the government (16). The passions that flare up during a war must exist among peoples even before it begins; the scope that the game of courage and talent acquires in the realm of probabilities and chance depends on the individual properties of the commander and the characteristics of the army; political goals belong exclusively to the government. These 3 tendencies, representing, as it were, 3 different series of laws, are deeply rooted in the nature of the subject itself and at the same time changeable in magnitude. A theory that wanted to neglect one of them or tried to establish an arbitrary relationship between them would immediately fall into sharp contradiction with reality and would put an end to itself. Thus, the task of the theory is to maintain a balance between these three tendencies, as between three points of attraction. Finding ways to solve this difficult problem is the subject of our study in the part of this work entitled “On the Theory of War.” In any case, the newly established concept of war will be the first ray of light that will illuminate the construction of the theory and give us the opportunity to understand its enormous content” 35. In our time, when wars are so outwardly different from each other in scale, in the use of technology, forces and means, in theaters and time of warfare, in forms and methods of conducting military operations, the problem of the essence of war is still relevant. In 2002, the commander of the 25th Infantry Division of the US Army, James Dubik, wrote the article “Has the Nature of War Changed? “Sorting Apples from Oranges” 36, in which he argued that despite any development in the military sphere, only the forms and methods of war change, but its essence remains the same. He writes that “the chameleon of war is at the same time a two-faced Janus” - one face of war determines variability and the ability to adapt, the other - constancy, which together constitutes the nature of war. ^
In this article, he formulated ten theses, which, in his opinion, lie in the constancy of the essence of war.
As an example of military thought and approaches to the topic, we present them in abstract form .
First. The causes of wars lie in human hearts. Second. War is the realm of reason and knowledge. ^
Third. War is a clash of wills.
Fourth. War by its very nature is uncertain. Fifth. War involves the use or threat of force. Sixth. War develops, it does not repeat itself. ^
Seventh. War is a continuation of politics.
Eighth. War has its own logic. Ninth. The war “hides in the corners of collective memory.” Tenth. War has two main forms - war of attrition and decisive war. ^
At the same time, no matter how “pure” or bloodless the war may be in its form, the true nature, the essence of the war ultimately makes itself felt
37
.
It seems to us that in this work of an American military professional we definitely see a continuation of the teachings of Carl Clausewitz, albeit in a more modern and concise form, which in itself is not bad because it is written by an army general, commander of an infantry division, which personally evokes deep respect for me . Of course, the above approaches to the topic of the nature of war and its definitions almost entirely relate to war, understood as armed struggle, but this point does not reduce the value of the ideas themselves. Of course, Karl Clausetz is a great military classic, but even he was not able to fully and accurately formulate his ideas about the essence of the subject, but left us his brilliant insights about war. We believe that, considering the problem of the essence of war in the direction of its interpretation by K. Clausewitz and the followers of his school, war is a means and form of policy to achieve the goals of national strategy by any means. Let us remember how Lev Tikhomirov wrote about the war: “Meanwhile, a person’s whole life is a struggle. The ability to do so is the most necessary condition of life. Of course, strength and activity can be directed not only for good, but also for evil. But if a creature does not have the very ability to fight, does not have strength, then this creature is absolutely no good, neither for good nor for evil. This is something deadly. And for a person there is nothing more disgusting than death, the absence of life. Evil is immoral; but as long as a person has strength, life, then no matter how harmful it may be directed, there is still the opportunity and hope to recreate the evil direction and direct this strength to good. If a person does not have the vital force itself, then he is already an almost inhuman being. You can’t pin any hopes on him.” “... in war the laws of life are always expressed, which in a “bad world” can be buried to such an extent in dirt and filth that it becomes difficult to even notice them. ^
War clarifies the meaning of life, just as it itself is understandable only to those who, through reason or instinct, understand the meaning of life.
Life - ideally - is peace, but life in fact is a struggle." 38
Vladimir Dahl’s Explanatory Dictionary says that there is a struggle, which deduces its basis from the word “fight”, therefore: “FIGHT, to fight someone, master in the fight, overcome struggling; wallow, break, throw on the ground, testing strength and dexterity, or in a fight, fight with someone, grappling with an opponent, jokingly or in battle, in a fight, one on one, try knock him down, knock him to the ground. fightonly
Can
fighting" 39
.
In the Modern Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language, “struggle” is interpreted as: " 1. Melee a fight between two, in which each tries to overpower the other, knocking him down. Military operations, battle. 2. View sport, which consists of combat between two athletes according to certain rules. 3. Physical resistance to someone or something. Efforts, activities aimed at overcoming, eradicating something 4. Interaction opposite sides, traits, tendencies inherent in all phenomena and processes of nature, society and thinking, which is the source of their development (in philosophy). 5. Collision opposing social groups, directions, trends, in which each side tries to win. 6. Collision" 40. Thus we see that " struggle is violence” and this is an axiom. “In the laws of our organic nature, the state of peace can only be achieved through constant struggle, so the goal of life is peace, and the means for this is struggle.” 41
- wrote Lev Tikhomirov. Now it seems important to us to connect all this with a single logic. We believe that a set of concepts that defines a certain list of components and states of existence of society “violence-power-war”, listed in any sequence and at any level of generalization, is the main paradigm, that is, the basic conceptual scheme of the existence of humanity. In other words, “violence-power-war” is the natural state of peoples, nations and states. ^
An analysis of human history convincingly proves the following series of axioms:
The successful implementation by a nation (political party, people, state, civilization) of this basic scheme gives it (them) victory, which means (almost always guaranteed) survival and development, a successful national history and a worthy place in the history of mankind. Any nation, people, party and state that does not know how to organize and maintain this state of national mobilization, to intelligently manage it (its nuances) and realize its benefits is doomed to historical non-survival. Moreover, as long as a nation is capable of such an effort, it exists, that is, it is alive and successful, and if it is no longer capable, then its end is inevitable and speedy. We are confident that the ability to recognize this necessity as a law of existence, and to be able to organize the existence of a nation for these purposes in an appropriate way, is a measure of the quality of power and the nation itself. The famous Austrian philosopher Elias Canetti in his work “Mass and Power” justifies the law of existence he discovered - "power is violence": “Violence is associated with the idea of what is close and right now. It is more immediate and urgent than power. Emphasizing this aspect, they talk about physical violence. Power on a deeper level, an animal level, is better called violence. Through violence, the prey is captured and transferred to the mouth. Violence, if it allows itself to linger, becomes power. However, in that moment that does happen - at the moment of decision, at the moment of irreversibility, it is again pure violence. Power is much more general and spacious, it includes a lot more and it is no longer as dynamic as violence. She takes circumstances into account and even has a certain amount of patience. In German, the word "Mach" (power) comes from the ancient Gothic root "magan", meaning "koennen, vermoegen" (to be able, to possess), and is not at all related to the word "machen" (to do). The difference between violence and power can be illustrated very simply, namely, by the relationship between a cat and a mouse” 42 (all emphasis mine, A.V.). We cannot fail to note the deep penetration of E. Conetti into the depths of the problem and the accuracy of his theses. Now let’s try to move from the general philosophical statements “power is violence” to the thesis “war is violence.” The first military scientist who brought military science to the level of independent military theory was the outstanding military philosopher and classic of military thought Carl von Clausewitz. We will cite the statements of Carl von Clausewitz about violence as the nature of war, since he was the first to draw such a conclusion and did it with talent, so let us allow ourselves to repeat the above texts. « ^
War is nothing more than extended combat
. If we want to comprehend as one whole all the countless individual martial arts that make up war, then it is best to imagine a fight between two fighters. Each of them seeks, through physical violence, to force the other to carry out his will; his immediate goal is to crush the enemy and thereby make him incapable of further resistance.” "So, war is an act of violence intended to force the enemy to carry out our will.” “War is an act of violence and there is no limit to its use; each of the combatants prescribes the law to the other; there is a competition that theoretically should push both opponents to extremes.” « ^
Violence uses the inventions of the arts and the discoveries of the sciences to counter violence.
. The imperceptible, scarcely worth mentioning restrictions which it imposes on itself in the form of the customs of international law accompany violence without actually weakening its effect.” "Thus, physical violence (for moral violence does not exist in the concepts of the state and law) is means,but the goal will be to impose our will on the enemy. To truly achieve this goal, we must disarm the enemy, deprive him of the opportunity to resist». “War is a dangerous business, and delusions that have their source in good nature are the most destructive for it. The use of physical violence in its entirety in no way excludes the assistance of reason; therefore, the one who uses this violence, without hesitation and without sparing blood, acquires a huge advantage over the enemy who does not do this.” « ^
War is the extreme use of violence.
One (the enemy) prescribes the law to the other; both opponents strain their efforts to the last extreme; there are no other limits to this tension except those that become internal counteracting forces.” .
This is how we should look at war; it would be useless, even foolish, to lose sight of its natural properties out of disgust at the severity of its element. If the wars of civilized peoples are much less cruel and destructive than the wars of savage peoples, then this is determined both by the level of social condition at which the warring states are located and by their mutual relations.” “War comes from this social state of states and their relationships, it is determined by them, it is limited and moderated by them. But all this does not relate to the true essence of the war and flows into the war from the outside. ^
The introduction of the principle of limitation and moderation into the philosophy of war itself is utter absurdity.”
43
.
Note that in these formulations and in general, the presented “theory of violence” by Carl von Clausewitz does not contain anything “armed”; this means that it already contains the grain of a general philosophical, and not a strictly military, understanding of war, but its essence is precisely revealed. ^
According to the modern formulation of the Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius:
"Violence, is the use by a certain social group of various forms of coercion against other groups in order to acquire or maintain economic and political dominance, to gain certain privileges” 44. Thus, and generally. It seems to us that war can be defined not simply as an act of violence, but as a process of targeted, organized violence carried out by some subjects of society against other subjects of society, in order to change the foundations of their own existence in their favor at the expense of the resources and capabilities of the other side. In war, all (any) and extreme measures of violence (coercion) are used, from changing the national psychology, right up to the threat of destruction of the enemy and his physical elimination. We are convinced that the historical correctness of everything said above is so obvious that no additional argumentation is required. Thus, The essence and content of war throughout the history of mankind have not changed. The essence and content of war is still violence (coercion). In this regard, it seems important to us to introduce as far as axiomatic statements. ^
Violence is always social and political in nature.
Any purposeful violent (forced) change in the state of society with the goal of using these changes to the detriment of oneself and in the interests of the organizer and initiator of violence is military action. The organized, purposeful, direct or indirect implementation into practice and life of measures of violence (coercion) by one subject of society relative to another subject, carried out proactively and spontaneously, is aggression. Determining criteria and indicators of aggression in different spheres of society is an urgent task of the state, military and other types of political sciences. Since these statements are of a fundamental nature, they will be presented in the corresponding section of the work as an independent postulate. In his work “Philosophy of War” A. Snesarev cites Lassalle’s profound statement: “reason is the content of history, but its form always remains violence.” Following the logic of our research and the logic of Lassalle himself, we can assert that, in our opinion, the main content of history is war, and, referring to the theses of E. Conetti, add - “history is written by power, which is realized by violence, that is, realized by war” . ***
“The main task of any theory is to clarify confusing terms and concepts...” “Once agreement has been reached on terms and concepts, one can hope for a simple and clear discussion of the issues and expect that we will find a common point of view...” 45
Carl von Clausewitz The Great Soviet Encyclopedia defines the very understanding of “science” this way: “SCIENCE is one of the forms of social consciousness. There are common features between science and other forms of social consciousness, such as art, morality, etc., which lie in the fact that they all represent different forms of reflection of reality. The use of the term is very diverse, however, the area where it is legitimate in its direct and precise sense is only science. Theory is a new, deeper generalized knowledge that expresses the results of a person’s active penetration into objective reality with the help of abstract thinking... Theory can and does point the way to practice due to the fact that it, to one degree or another, reveals objective truth, more or less accurately and completely reflects the patterns that take place in life, in objective reality, and equips people with knowledge of these patterns. ^
The theory has as its object
developing phenomena of nature and social life and represents a form of expression of progressive human knowledge. ^
The theory is developing
by summarizing new facts, new experience, new practice and creative processing of existing theoretical knowledge; The study of the history of science is of great importance for the emergence of new theories and the development of theoretical thinking” 48 . It is important to note that in the field of modern big science there are several approaches to this term, since for the first time in the history of wars Carl Clausewitz called one of the chapters of his classic work “On War” - “Theory of War”, the world realized that war must have its own theory, which can describe such an important social phenomenon as war, have its own conceptual apparatus and develop according to its own laws. Our main and considered classic Military Encyclopedic Dictionary, without citing or considering the concept of “theory of war,” at the same time gives an interpretation of the concept of “military theory.” Let us present it in full, since it is precisely it, with the exception of its “Soviet part,” that today is the basis of all theoretical constructions of national military science. ^ "MILITARY THEORY- systematized and generalized knowledge about the phenomena of war and military affairs, patterns and features of their development. It is formed on the basis of military practice and serves its purposes. Military theory is constantly being improved on the basis of generalizing the experience of all types of military activities - wars, military exercises, and other types of military practice, taking into account the development of the organizational structure of the Armed Forces, weapons and military equipment. In peacetime conditions, methods of military experimentation and modeling of the processes of a possible war are widely used. The criterion for the truth of a military theory is the practice of waging the war in anticipation of which it was developed." 49 .
The publication “War and Peace in Terms and Definitions” gives the following interpretation:
« ^ THEORY OF WAR- a set of generalized concepts, ideas and interpretations of the origins of war, explanations of the cause-and-effect nature of their occurrence, giving a holistic idea of the patterns and significant connections in the development of processes that give rise to wars, determining their course and completion (outcome). There are various theories of wars: Despite the inconsistency, and often the falsity, of certain attitudes of these theories, each of them contains elements of truth that reveal certain aspects of wars, their causes and consequences” 50. As an example, we will give only one formulation of the theory of war. ^
“CLASSICAL THEORY OF WAR -
a set of abstracted from ideological attitudes of the most important general theoretical, philosophical, military-political, economic, military-strategic and military-technical about the essence, origin and content of war as the main component of armed struggle, other forms of struggle, means, forms and methods of conducting them. Includes rational provisions from various theories of war, which makes it possible to reveal and justify its various aspects and elements. The classical theory of war recognizes that the main sources of modern wars are antagonistic contradictions between states and peoples, resolved by force (violent) measures, means and methods. This theory proceeds from the fact that war is a complex social phenomenon, the continuation of politics by violent means, an open, most acute armed clash between states and social forces. Its roots lie at the basis of other objective elements of the development of social relations, at the basis of generalized historical experience. In a concentrated form, the essence of war, as a philosophical category, was defined by the famous military theorist and historian Carl von Clausewitz: war is nothing more than a continuation of state policy by other means. However, neither Clausewitz nor his followers gave a clear philosophical assessment of the original essence of wars, reducing their analysis mainly to a description of war as a socio-political phenomenon." 51
. It should be noted here that, in our opinion, It was Karl von Clausewintz who defined the essence of war, considering it not as a socio-political phenomenon, but as an independent phenomenon and the main part of the usual and centuries-old forceful armed political practice of any state of that time. No one except and after him, so scrupulously and precisely, considered the war in this regard, and simply did not evaluate it as a socio-political phenomenon. ^
To complete the picture, we present several encyclopedic interpretations of the concept of “military science”.
In the interpretation of the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary of 1907 we read: Military science- theory of war, doctrine of war, systematic development of the laws of military art. Military science embraces the doctrine of military purposes(military policy), o military means(organization, management, armament and equipment of troops, fortresses, naval forces, etc.) and, finally, on the basis of both, the doctrine of use of military means to achieve the goal, i.e. about the waging war. It breaks down into guidelines for military operations on a vast scale (strategy) and the study of individual orders regarding the concentration, movement and combat operations of troops (tactics). Next to this, in a broad sense, military science, particular ones, such as fortification, artillery, are only auxiliary sciences; The same importance applies to those branches of other sciences that are needed by the military, for example, military geography, military chemistry, military topography, etc. There are numerous textbooks, collections, manuals, military encyclopedias, etc. on individual or all branches of military science. He is followed by Jomini (see this name), of whose numerous works "Précis de l"art de la guerre" deserves special attention; then Clausewitz, whose work ("Vom Krieg") appeared only after his death (1831); finally - Willisen with his “Theorie des grossen Krieges”, 1840). The history of the development of military science is presented by Rüstow in his essay “Feldherrnkunst des 19 Jahrhunderts” (Zurich, 1857 52). The main subject of military science is armed struggle in war. Military science, which studies primarily problems of a social nature, is a social science; at the same time, it is closely related to the natural and technical sciences. In subject classification, carried out in accordance with cognizable laws, it includes: general foundations (general theory) of military science; theory of military art; theory of armed forces development; theory of military training and education; theory of military economics and logistics of the armed forces. Military science also includes problems of military history covered by its subject. In the subject-problem classification, military science includes the theory of command and control of the armed forces and the theory of weapons. theory of types of armed forces" 53
.
^
In addition to the above list of various theories of war, there are concepts of types of wars:
geo-economic war; information war; network-centric warfare; economic war and so on, since almost any sphere of human activity can be declared “military” and even be an integral part of military operations, despite the fact that each of these wars has its own theory and is formed based on the corresponding ideological views, the dominant military ideology, military policies of various states and social groups and serves their goals. As we see, interpretations of the theory of war and military science from various sources and authors consider them only as corresponding theories of armed struggle itself, which, in our opinion, sharply impoverishes the very phenomenon of war and limits the horizons of military science and its theory. One of the main objectives of this work is an attempt to give coherence and scientific thoroughness to the outstanding achievements of military thought, scattered today throughout the centuries and the works of great commanders, strategists, politicians and scientists, and the creation on this basis of a relatively complete, but not complete, modern theory of wars. It is for these purposes that we will try to formulate our own interpretations of the very concepts of “theory of war” and “military science”. ^
The theory of war has as its object
developing over time phenomena of interaction between the main parts of society - ethnic groups, nations, states and civilizations in the process of their existence and struggle to realize the goals of their strategies. ^
The theory of war studies and formulates
a set of generalized concepts, ideas and interpretations of the origins of war, explains the cause-and-effect nature of their occurrence, giving a holistic idea of the patterns and significant connections in the development of processes that give rise to war and determine the course and completion (outcome) of the war. ^
The theory of war is the basis of military science,
has its own scientific apparatus, its own logic and philosophy of considering the social problems of the existence of humanity and its differently organized parts; it also includes special theories of various types of wars. ^ MILITARY SCIENCE– as an integral part of science in general and an independent political science, it is one form of social consciousness, a system of knowledge about war as a social phenomenon, patterns, methods and features of its preparation and conduct in a specific historical situation. ^
Military science is based on the theory of war
and covers the main issues of the organization of national existence, which play an important role in the formation of a successful present and future of the nation as an independent and independent subject of human society. It also covers the doctrine of strategy, the art of war, the theory of its branch and service units, issues of organization and training of states, their armed forces, issues of the economic and moral capabilities of the nation (country) and enemy states (countries) for waging war. ^
In order to ensure the relatively safe and effective development of the nation, Military Science:
In relation to our interpretation of military science and the theory of war, we can affirmatively say that our time daily, if not hourly, confirms that war is not “when guns fire,” but when, before our eyes, entire nations disappear from history, states arise and disappear . Probably, today, when new “types of wars” are constantly appearing and the world community speaks passionately and openly about this phenomenon, to continue to take it as an axiom that “war is armed violence” is, at the very least, short-sighted, since the world is actually already at war, fighting brutally , on a large scale and not only with “tanks”. The author proceeds from the assumption that the theory of war is based on the essence of several basic postulates, in turn based on the basic laws of human existence and the own logic of axiomatic statements 54. Even a cursory glance at the history of mankind reveals the main and indisputable pattern of its development, traced through all the millennia of human existence as a biological species. This main and indisputable pattern of human development is that humanity has always developed from simple to complex, both at the level of the human body and at the level of human society. It seems to us that for the first time and on a full scale this pattern was isolated and applied as a law of development of human existence by the Russian writer and philosopher Mikhail Weller, who formulated -The law of global structuring. According to Mikhail Weller The law of global structurization is expressed in the following: “Any changes in any material structures ultimately lead to the complication of these structures or their involvement in more general and more complex structures” 55. ^
The essence of the existence of the Universe is energy evolution, carried out by changing its structure
The essence of man in the Universe is to be a structurer. an ordering principle and organizer of both his own existence and his Planet and the Universe, if, of course, he is capable of this. ^
The basis of the mechanism for structuring one’s own existence, the Planet and the Universe, is the “mechanism of human desire.”
Remaking the Universe, the Planet and one’s own existence is for a person a consequence of his desire to achieve fame for himself or to realize his other personal or group preferences, which are their goals” 56. ^
We believe that in relation to human society, this law has the form of the Law of increasing the complexity of the organization of human existence.
The validity of these statements is obvious, since even a school history course is structured as a process that studies the development of human society from its primitive state towards modern civilization. We can observe a direct manifestation of this law in the example of the process of changing and expanding the basis of a person’s self-identification. The process of human self-identification has historically proceeded and continues to proceed, from a person’s very specific awareness of himself as: his own personality, a member of his family, clan, ethnic group and nation (state); until a person realizes himself as a representative of ever wider levels of social communities. Such broad social communities in terms of a person’s self-identification are, for example, awareness of oneself as part of the society of one’s continent - for example, a European or an African; at the level of all humanity - race (white man and so on); relating oneself to the level of a particular civilization, that is, defining oneself by belonging to world religions and cultures (for example, Orthodoxy, the West, and so on); and even communities of a planetary cosmic scale, such as a representative of Humanity and planet Earth. In addition, there are always local, temporary corporate and other types of social entities of all kinds and levels that can be an independent area of people’s self-identification. These conclusions and generalizations are not a discovery; many outstanding philosophers and historians spoke about them in one form or another, let’s just name A. Toynbee 57
and S. Huntington 58
.
The only new thing here is thatthis evidence is used to illustrate the Law of complication of the organization of human existence. This means that the structures formed in the course of the development and complexity of society, which objectively lead the world to stability and create the prerequisites for its development (for example, multipolarity, sovereignization, national-state formations, and so on, and providing the opportunity for the positive development of humanity) - are consolidated in its existence, historical practice and in the history of mankind. At the same time, those social entities that periodically appear and perform functions in humanity for the sake of their “spontaneous temporary relevance”, but lead to the “simplification” of social existence historically “extinguish”, despite all their undoubted and contemporary significance. This is exactly how, in our opinion, the memory and “worldly glory” of ancient cultures, powerful empires, great conquerors and alliances, which “complicated the world” and left their indelible positive mark on history, passed and remained in the history of mankind. Probably the modern social entities that “simplify”, that is, practically leading to a historical dead end, sculpting today a “unipolar world”, “the hegemony of the USA, NATO” and so on, are also waiting for their place in the history of mankind. This means that the factors of “complication” and the factors of “simplification” of the social existence of mankind periodically manifest themselves in their entirety and with varying strengths confront and fight with each other, despite the fact that the trend of “complication” ultimately always wins, which is what we see manifestation of the Law. An analysis of the development of the latest trends in human development, for example, such as “diffusion of ethnic groups and races,” reveals that quite soon we will face even more significant changes in the state of human society, and the next “era of change” into which our civilization is obviously entering will be by no means less complex and difficult than everything that humanity has already experienced in its history. It is important for us to give an example of the interesting thoughts and approaches to designing the future of our compatriots Sergei Pereslegin and Nikolai Yutanov 59 .
.
“The future is a set of projects, and construction here is understood as creating conditions in the country for the implementation of those future options that are considered successful from the point of view of at least one of the country’s citizens. The purpose of such design is not to create another “program for overcoming the crisis”, not to search for a saving political and/or economic combination, not to choose the lesser of two or more evils, but to build a springboard, a Cosmodrome for those dream ships that are still in our America-looking reality has nowhere to land. Abandoning the principle of “the fragility of the world” does not relieve a person of responsibility for his actions, but allows him to move on to the actual management of the Current Reality. The principle of “sustainability of the world” can be formulated in a fairly practical and positive form: the Universe is friendly to any person on Earth. This form-slogan allows for contradictory interpretations and interpretations, but makes it possible to realize that man himself is the master of his universe. Every event that happens, regardless of whether it is assessed subjectively as “good” or “bad,” is a stimulus for development, for realizing one’s essence, for fulfilling one’s own creative tasks in this Universe. Note that this belief is the cornerstone of any religion, including Christian. Let us also note that, at the same time, it does not contradict positivist philosophy, not excluding its extreme forms. In other words, we believe that each person himself, completely freely and absolutely independently chooses: whether he will be rich and healthy, or poor and sick, and this internal choice has no roots in the Reality surrounding a person. In the same way, everyone is capable of consciously creating history, creating new entities and thereby transforming the world from the Present to the Future, “from existing to emerging.” In this regard, we can propose a slogan: From each a Wonder of the World, to each individual responsibility for what he has done.” “Currently, developed countries, whose population is satisfied with themselves and satisfied with their lives, are gravitating towards the concept of a “dead future”, towards stopping the real historical process. Imagine for a moment that some discoveries of the future have already been made, but out of noble concern for the peace of mind of the citizens of the nth country, they are prohibited. There are people capable of working for the future in the nth country, but due to a misunderstanding, everyone is imprisoned. And, finally, where to move is already clear, but the general course has not yet been approved by the Ensky President. So how can we stop this? Given the informational connectivity of countries! Not in the West, but in Russia, Africa or Indonesia, all these answers to the questions: “where to develop?”, “how to act?” and “who will start it?” find their home, and a living future will be built there. In the old metaphor of grass breaking through asphalt, the asphalt sometimes breaks down, but no one dies from it. So, I would like to use potential energy of the Future(accumulated primarily in “stalled” “developed” countries), transform it from an information form into financial flows and production activities and thereby create a springboard through which the Future will penetrate into the Present. We consider “constructing the Future” as the consistent implementation of a number of projects - from regional to national and international, each of which introduces one or another innovation, but in no case crosses out anything in the “existing world”. Currently, developed countries, whose population is satisfied with themselves and satisfied with their lives, are gravitating towards the concept of a “dead future”, towards stopping the real historical process. We are talking about very simple things here. The present, as a system, strives to extend itself “from eternity to eternity” and generously pays for this, providing its adherents with the necessary financial, informational, and spiritual resources. The future strives for the status of Current Reality and is also ready to pay for it. Trying to stop development, the United States and Western European countries are accumulating enormous potential energy of “delayed changes.” This energy can be used for their own purposes by other countries and, above all, China and Russia. Once upon a time, it was in this way that the third-rate North American United States turned into a world power. Russia has a real chance to use the resources of developed countries in the interests of a “living future”» 60. If the entire history of the development of mankind is a path of complication of its existence, then it seems obvious to us that the main mechanism of this onset, fixation and consolidation of this complication are wars, which are part of the existence of mankind, the main milestones and events of its history, determining the state and destinies of mankind as a whole and individual subjects of his society. We are convinced that it is precisely this circumstance that determines both the highest, if not the decisive, role of wars in the history of mankind, as well as their practical permanence. In our world there are many different laws of social development, including those that we have designated as the basic laws of “competition” and “cooperation”, the actions and interactions of which lead to the complication of the organization of human existence.
It seems to us that the law of “competition” is the law of “immediate success at any cost.” ^
Of course, competition is necessary for development.
But this competition must have the form of rivalry, which, in turn, must be competitive, that is, carried out as competition (thirst for championship), which encourages rivals to make additional efforts in order to become the best and in the name of achieving championship or victory in specific race, project or area. The main condition for the positivity of this process is the holding of a “fair fight conducted according to fair rules.” But if The main objective of competition is “immediate success at any cost”,then it inevitably leads to destruction. It so happened that the “trading world of the West and the Sea” is developed by “competition” and submits to its demands, discarding everything that is “not the latest and not the most effective,” meaning everything that cannot “be profitably sold here and now.” At the same time, the natural and intellectual resources of the planet are mercilessly and predatorily exploited, and not only completely effective and viable projects, technologies and even moral values, but also entire worlds are automatically discarded. This means that if the world continues to be guided by the law of “competition,” then all the “other or third” worlds (and this is the bulk of humanity) will only be a field of Western expansion and exploitation, they will have no chance of their own development and will are doomed to “civilizational vegetation” and to “civilizational antagonism.” Will they resign themselves to such a fate prepared for them(?), probably not, and this does not bode well for all of us, it means that “there will be no peace on Earth.” Following the law of “competition” as a basic state value and paradigm of state policy inevitably shapes it as a policy of state egoism, a policy of “national interests at any cost”, which will ultimately inevitably lead civilization to universal antagonism and collapse. and the permanent war of “all against all” will become human everyday life. The monograph of General Alexander Vladimirov is the only work of its kind that directly declares that it was not written “about war” or about the “art of war”, but represents precisely the “theory of war”, which is the only and unique thing in the entire history of military thought example. The work gives a fairly complete and systematic understanding of war as a social phenomenon, as an important part of national existence and state practice. In the scale of “theories of war”, the works of General Alexander Vladimirov can be compared with the “unified field theory” in physics, since war and armed struggle itself are not only a part of the existence of humanity that has its own philosophy, but also an obligatory part of the national strategy of a power, understood by the author as a theory , practice and art of government. In his theory of war, both war in the interpretation of Sun Tzu, the theory of war according to Carl von Clausewitz, B. Liddell Hart and modern delights of military science, as well as war as (perhaps the main) social phenomenon of human existence, fit into and do not contradict each other. having its own general civil (social) and actually military (armed) parts, which, in turn, also have their own philosophy, dialectics, laws, principles and methods of preparation and conduct and which do not contradict each other, but explain the phenomenon of war and identify its tools . For the first time in the history of military thought, the author managed to bring relative order to the sum of the ideas it had accumulated and give the theory of war scientific harmony and solidity, despite the fact that General Alexander Vladimirov’s own ideas are his independent contribution to the treasury of world military thought and an impulse capable of creating its new stage. Of particular importance are the new basic foundations of national military thought developed by the author, which provide the opportunity for a new creative breakthrough in military science and the emergence of new effective government practices in the military development of Russia and in the management of the state and the Army. The monograph is not only an unparalleled textbook on the theory of war, but also a textbook on national strategy and philosophy of Russian politics, and even a kind of “instruction” on the practical application of strategic axioms and methods of governing the country. Almost the modern theory of war of Alexander Vladimirov is a modern theory of government. Thus, a new direction of scientific thought has emerged in the field of political science, the foundations of a new scientific school of great practical importance have been created, and Russia can be proud to be its homeland. It seems that studying a course in the theory of war and the fundamentals of national strategy should become a mandatory component of professional training in the Russian civil service system and in the system of professional military education. The monograph is recommended for study as a compulsory course for training heads of senior government bodies; independent course of study in educational institutions of higher education; in master's (postgraduate) programs in political (political science) and higher management specialties; in the preparation of political activists in party building. Size: px Start showing from the page: 1 Candidate of Political Sciences, author of the fundamental work “Fundamentals of the General Theory of War” 1, retired Major General Fundamentals of the General Theory of War and the Foundations of the New Geopolitical Ethics I. Several axioms from the general theory of war that everyone should know Modern war is not when tanks fire and artillery, aviation and missile troops strike, and the soldiers of the sides in the war advance the front line until victory. Modern war is like radiation, you don’t feel it, but you are no longer there. Thus, peoples and states quietly disappear from the history of mankind. An example of this is the USSR, a huge empire with a powerful army and nuclear weapons, disappeared, and no one fired. 1. The existence of Humanity takes place in a paradigm (basic scheme) of two main (basic) natural states: WAR and PEACE, and there is no third one. “WAR” and “PEACE” are only stages (cycles and rhythms) of the existence of humanity and society at any level. “PEACE” is a way of fulfilling roles by subjects of society, formed by the last war, it creates the potential for change. War realizes the potential for change, creates and redistributes new roles and statuses of its participants. 2. There is a war in the world, it is permanent (continuous) and universal. Armed struggle is only one of the forms (phases) of war. This means that during a war it is too late to prepare for war; we must fight. Therefore, the main motive, principle and law of modern life is “If you want peace, fight!” 3. The purpose of the war is not the destruction of the enemy, but the forceful redistribution of the role functions of social subjects (for example, states) in favor of the strong, capable of forming their own model of post-war management of society, as well as taking full advantage of the strategic effects of their victory 4. The main prize of war is not resources, not territory and not the power on it, but the new changed national mentality of the defeated nation, always complementary to the winner, which ensures him the victory of his Meaning, and therefore his winning of the future. 5. War is waged by the parties to the war, each of which pursues its own goals. In a war there can only be victory for one of the sides and there are no compromises, which are only possible in conflicts. 6. Wars always end not in peace, but in the victory of one of the parties and the conclusion of peace on the terms of the victorious party. Winner: forms the post-war picture of the world; 1 Vladimirov A.I. Fundamentals of the general theory of war: monograph: in 2 hours. Part I: Fundamentals of the theory of war. 832 pp.; part II: The theory of national strategy: the foundations of the theory, practice and art of statecraft. 967 pp. / A.I. Vladimirov. - M.: Moscow Financial and Industrial University "Synergy", 2 formalizes the results of his victory in international and national law, in accordance with the Law of the Right of Victory; dictates to the vanquished his terms for the structure of the post-war world; takes advantage of the strategic effects of his victory in the war, that is, he uncontrollably uses all the resources of the vanquished. 7. Who is our enemy? It seems to us that Russia’s main adversary, even its enemy, is radical liberalism and the states and military-political structure of NATO that personify it, including political chimeras such as Ukraine, as well as the forces of the internal fifth column; radical political Islam and the states that personify it, non-state formations and chimera states (ISIS), as well as the internal forces of its support. II. General outline of the modern strategic landscape The current moment in human history is the process of formation of a new architecture of the world that has already begun. The new architecture of the world is formed and acquires its new fundamental forms and outlines only through violence, that is, only through war (remember Talleyrand: “Violence is the midwife of history”). In this regard, it is necessary to state a modern objective reality: war is inevitable; it is impossible to avoid war; the war is already underway; the war can only end with the victory of one of the parties to the war; the war will end with the conclusion of peace on the terms of the winner, who will build a new architecture of the world and, exclusively in his own interests, a system for managing it; Russia is a party to the war; Russia cannot rely on the intelligence and conscience of its geopolitical rivals (adversaries and enemies); in this war, Russia has no allies, but only, as always, its Army and Navy. Moreover, the main theater of war is our own consciousness, and the most advanced weapon of war is not nuclear weapons or computer viruses, but human consciousness and psychology, and human flows. The validity of what has been said can be observed every day in the example of the flow of refugees from Syria and Africa to Europe and their behavior, as well as in the quality of its national elites, in the “freaks” in power in Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states, etc. The overall strategic situation is deteriorating every day; there are no chances or options for a peaceful outcome or peaceful course of the process of this new “world breakdown”. III. War as a war of meanings We are convinced that the future war, regardless of its physical scale and even theaters of war, will be of a civilizational nature, which inevitably gives it the level of a war of meanings. It seems to us that the war of meanings is a war for the victory of one or another system of meanings at the civilizational level, which is waged by states, nations and other parts of human society that identify themselves with one or another sum of their basic moral values and, on this basis, classify themselves as one or the other. another civilization. An important factor in this situation is the obvious mutual non-complementarity of these civilizations, which determines a new level of conflict basis for future wars. 2 3 In the context of the “theory of war”, the meaning of national existence acts as a resource for which there is a struggle, which must be protected and preserved, because meanings are what shapes the national mentality and makes the nation what it is in the history of mankind. Meanings are the core of national culture, which are not always clear and not always verbalized, but which are manifested in the process of communication styles and forms of interaction familiar to a given culture. When the traditional styles of interaction of people for a given culture are destroyed, their ability to understand the meanings of their culture is lost, and when the meanings and interactions of people themselves are destroyed, their lives turn into nonsense. The concept of “meaning” reveals another meaning when considered in the context of the theory of war. In this case, we are talking about a “war of meanings” as a confrontation of meanings, in our plan - the meanings of national existence. The war of meanings is the process of erasing and removing historical authentic national values and meanings from the way of life of a nation, from the bosom of its national culture and replacing them with other alien values and meanings, which leads to a change in the way of existence of a nation and a change in its historical genetic code. If such an operation ends in success, then the meanings, the national culture, and, in the long term, the nation itself perish. We are convinced that, according to the General Theory of War, the meaning of Russia's national existence is determined by its national genetics, i.e., its historical Mission in the world, a set of its historical national values, formed by the valuable choices of the nation throughout the history of its existence. *** In terms of the Fundamentals of the General Theory of War, the Ninth Postulate defines war in its highest form as a war of meanings, and its Main Goal as the capture (conquest) of the future. The highest form of war is the war of civilizations, this is the war of the Meanings of their existence. In the war of meanings, the winner is not the side that wins space, resources, or even comes to control, but the side that seizes the future. IV. Foundations of a new geopolitical ethics In the most general and abstract form, this new geopolitical ethics, which we understand as a certain synthesis of the rules of existence, as a code of mutual behavior and relations between powers and nations, based on a new moral universal message and as an agenda for the 21st century, can be set out in several principles of peaceful and constructive coexistence. Foundations of a new geopolitical ethics St. Augustine in the 4th century. AD formulated, as it seems to us, the basic and absolute principles of the ethics of the coexistence of peoples and, in general, the existence of all members of human society: “Unity is in the main, diversity in the secondary, love in everything.” In addition to these axioms and in relation to modernity, the basic methodological thesis of geoethics may sound like this: the world is one for everyone, therefore the geopolitical confrontation of Powers, “centers of power”, Land and Sea, West and East, North and South should be removed by the concept of “Humanity”, its purpose, the general goal of survival and development as a biological species, the general goals of its well-being, successful history and eternity. The goal of the new geoethics is: 3 4 transformation of the geopolitics of the struggle for dominance and dominance into the geopolitics of cooperation, joint survival and development, as a joint civilizational effort of great and small, maritime and continental powers, different civilizations. The basis of the new geopolitical ethics of nations should be the fundamental foundations of its existence, which have proven their truth in human history, based on: Respect for Life as such, as the basis of humanism; The moral consensus of all civilizations and great religions of mankind; The main principle of medical ethics (Hippocratic Oath): “Do no harm!”; Russian idea of “Justice”; Chinese philosophy of "Harmony"; The German idea of “Order and Law”; On the principle of respect for other life and other people's sovereignty: “Live and let live!” On the law of “cooperation and interaction”; On the priorities of the responsibilities of people and their societies (families, nations, states and societies); On a new international law, written on the basis of a new geopolitical ethics (since all modern international law is written only and exclusively in the interests of the US Federal Reserve System); On the voluntary rejection of the “Strategy of Domination and Domination” (“A power pursuing a policy of domination inevitably suffers defeat and national catastrophe”) 2. These foundations determine new rules for the life of states and nations. 1. When there is strength, you must be wise so that, even while helping, you do not accidentally harm others and do not “overexert” yourself; when there is no strength, you need to be especially patient and persistent. 2. You cannot impose your values, ideology and way of life on others by force. 3. You need to know, respect each other and be able to negotiate. 4. Try to avoid conflicts of interests, and when this is impossible, then negotiate again, try to harmonize them as much as possible and resolve conflicts on the basis of mutually acceptable compromises. 5. Do not be guided by double standards. 6. Do not dramatize disagreements, but explain and translate them into a field of understanding. 7. Do not oppose yourself to your partners, even in cases where there are real opportunities and conditions for imposing your will. 8. Do not seek one-sided benefits in relationships. 9. Do not form or support mutual antipathies. 10. Do not create conflicts. 11. Treat with particular caution issues affecting the historical specifics of the internal sovereignty of partners. 12. Limit your own “hawks”, the thirst for profit and the greed of your own corporations. 13. Share your capabilities to solve common problems. This list goes on and on. The main thing depends only on the mutual good political will, patience and determination of nations that have realized the historical necessity of a new geopolitical existence, to which, in our opinion, there is no reasonable alternative. 2 Dashichev V.I. from Stalin to Putin. Memories and reflections about the past, present and future. / Dashichev V. I. M.: New Chronograph, P.90 4 5 It seems to us that in the world of people, what should determine their relationships should be not so much laws, including “international law,” but precisely these ethical principles of existence. If we do not follow these rules, then the “fight for peace” can destroy us all. This means that we must take concrete steps to counter the fatal consequences of unlimited superpower competition, and structure our actions in such a way as to try to coexist without compromising our own interests and authority, as well as the interests and authority of our partner. The most important statements of the strategic plan 1. It is impossible to defeat a war with war. 2. War can only be won with ethics. 3. Russia cannot defeat its opponents, that is, the collective West (USA), China and radical Islam, with its military force. 4. In the ongoing war of Meanings, one can only win with one’s own Meaning, that is (including) with a new geopolitical ethics, which Russia is obliged to formulate and offer to the world. 5. New geoethics should be proposed by Russia as the basis for the formation of a new picture and architecture of the world - the world as a collection of equally respected worlds, and not centers of power. 6. The construction of a new world must be accompanied and advanced by new principles of its existence, that is, a new geopolitical ethics. 7. The Russian Orthodox Church must formulate a new geopolitical ethics. 8. Representatives of civil society in Russia and Germany can propose a new geopolitical ethics to the world. Together we must: develop a new ethics, discuss and convince the rest of the world to accept it; hold the necessary conferences in Berlin and Moscow; convene the Parliamentary Conference of the states that signed the Paris Peace Charter in 1990 (21 states signed the Charter), as the best document adopted in the entire history of mankind; adopt an Appeal to the peoples of the world and the UN; make new ethics the basis for the peaceful coexistence of powers and peoples; it is necessary to make any attempts to forcefully dominate and interfere in the lives of other peoples ethically unacceptable and morally impossible, and their initiators to be unshakable outcasts of humanity. The new paradigm of human existence depends only on the mutual good political will of nations that have realized the historical necessity of a new geopolitical existence, to which, in our opinion, there is no reasonable alternative. Outside of this, Russia and humanity will not have a successful or even simply historical future. The apocalypse of humanity will be generated by the mutual enmity of peoples. The non-occurrence of the Apocalypse is possible only in a new moral atmosphere of human existence, which will be given to him by his new ethics. *** In the ongoing war, Russia can win: By a feat of spirit and an example of the feat of its own internal improvement; The Truth of Meanings, Thoughts and Actions; A series of obvious, visible and convincing successes in the development of one’s own being; Being guided by the national strategy of spirit and morality; 5 6 Being led by national leaders and service people, prepared for service to the Fatherland from childhood, in the Russian cadet education system. 6 Alexander Vladimirov President of the College of Military Experts of Russia, member of the National Strategy Council, senior researcher at the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, candidate of political sciences, graduate of the Moscow SVU, author of a fundamental Alexander Vladimirov President of the College of Military Experts of Russia, member of the National Strategy Council, Honorary Chairman of the All-Russian and Moscow Commonwealths of Suvorov, Nakhimov and cadets of Russia, A book for those who do not want to get caught up in “foreign geopolitics” (Foreword by Mikhail Leontyev)... 8 Russia at war (Foreword by Alexander Prokhanov)... 9 Introduction. Strike at America...12 Part I. World (Kyrgyz National A. Kh. Bugazov University) EDUCATION AS A MEANS OF FORMING VALUES IN THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF STUDENTS Traditionally, the educational process, in addition to the students’ assimilation of new knowledge, has always included Born on April 17, 1945 in the family of a military man. Hereditary, over many generations, officer. Russian. Education: Moscow Suvorov Military School (1963); Moscow Higher Combined Arms Lecture 14. Global problems and prospects of modern civilization. The main idea of the topic: A. Blok: In the 20th century, humanity was faced with a choice: to disappear as a race or to survive by changing its qualities. 24. Geopolitical image of the world At all times of human existence, people have had to decide which of their surrounding neighbors are friends and which are enemies; Which of them is worth building good relationships with, and which of them? Conflict management Modern theories and practices of conflict Conflict analysis Technologies of conflict management Conflict is Nothing good Conflict is Necessary! Conflict DANGER OPPORTUNITY Conflict management Draft structure and table of contents of the Concept as of April 30, 2016 Request: make corrections and reasonable additions for discussion and approval in the Working Group of the Council of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science on Cadet Education Alexander Vladimirov President of the College of Military Experts of Russia, member of the National Strategy Council, Honorary Chairman of the All-Russian and Moscow Commonwealths of Suvorov, Nakhimov and cadets of Russia, Alexander Vladimirov Advisor to the Chairman of DOSAAF of Russia Member of the Public Chamber of the Union State of Russia Belarus, President of the College of Military Experts of Russia, Honorary Chairman of the All-Russian G). The inevitability of a choice in favor of Russia's ideological leadership in Eurasia China is a world power based on human capital The collapse of the Russian Empire created a vacuum of power in the very center of Eurasia2 Conflict is a collision of oppositely directed, mutually incompatible tendencies (views, interests, motives, etc.) in interpersonal interactions or interpersonal relationships of individuals or WHAT IS CONFLICT? This word is used to describe a serious quarrel between friends, a random squabble between strangers on a crowded bus, a scandal with parents over another bad grade, and a confrontation Industrial society and political development at the beginning of the twentieth century Which ideology proclaimed traditionalism, order and stability as its core values? 1) liberalism 2) conservatism 3) nationalism UDC 174.4 BBK 87.7 Babaeva A.V., Doctor of Philology, Professor, Branch of GRSU, Voronezh, Russia THE ROLE OF CORPORATE CULTURE IN MODERN SOCIETY A modern organization is turning into a community with its own values, UNITED NATIONS Distr. GENERAL GENERAL COUNCIL "/"/" ASSEMBLY SC R SECURITY * 1 9 in 6 ORIGINAL: CHINESE/ ENGLISH GENERAL ASSEMBLY Forty-first session Paragraphs 49, 56, 60, 61, 62, 64, GECKON_Report 1 Team name Young historians Report title “The Fate of Humanity in One Click.” And how many times have they told the world that wars are evil, destruction, death, but there is still a threat to life from MOSCOW STATE TECHNOLOGY, ECONOMICS AND LAW IM. L.B. KRASINA The history of the Defender of the Fatherland Day The history of the Defender of the Fatherland Day It was generally accepted that I. The modern world has entered a period of instability, global geopolitical and historical changes. Markets are being redistributed, key parameters of international relations are being revised, and the overall 1 THE CLASH OF HUNTINGTON'S CIVILIZATIONS AND THE FUTURE OF WORLD CIVILIZATIONS. Omarov R.U. Dagestan State University, Makhachkala The relevance of the chosen topic is due to objective necessity Lukanin M., Nikitonov D., GBOU Secondary School 887, Moscow CHINA A MODERN SUPERPOWER China today occupies more and more place in our lives. Just 15-20 years ago it was difficult to find Chinese in the USSR Andrey ILLARIONOV, senior fellow at the Center for Global Freedom and Development, Cato Institute (Washington, USA) Proposing the Crimean test Tell me whose Crimea is, and I’ll tell you who you are, Aider Muzhdabaev 1 minted The Great Patriotic War, falsification of its history and our Future. Sergei Solodovnik, political scientist, journalist, candidate of historical sciences, deputy chairman of the Historical Club, member of the Union of Journalists CODE OF ETHICS AND OFFICIAL CONDUCT OF TEACHING WORKERS I. General provisions 1. The Code of Professional Ethics of Teaching Workers of the St. Petersburg State Educational Institution "Okhta College" (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was developed in accordance with Rakhmanin Igor Sergeevich ABSTRACT of bachelor's work SETTLEMENT OF MODERN INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS (EXAMPLE OF AFGHANISTAN). Relevance of the research topic. The history of mankind is history November 3, 2017 241 The XXI World Russian People's Council was held in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior Photo: Alexander Egortsev This year the forum agenda included the topic “Russia in the XXI century: historical experience and prospects” UDC code: 355/359 2016 Kachalkov A.D., master's student Ural Institute of Management - branch of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation, RANEPA, Yekaterinburg Engines of Change and Nonviolent Struggle Hardy Merriman, 2008 Nonviolent action empowers ordinary people to fight for their rights, freedom and justice. Nonviolent struggle is often Historical memory is an invaluable heritage of Russian civilization. Opening the ninth meeting on the topic “Historical memory, what should it be?”, Doctor of Law, Rector of the European Institute JUSTO, Chairman Pedagogical ethics Ethics is the science of morality Duty Responsibility Happiness Freedom The meaning of life Conscience Beauty Justice Truth Good Moral categories Friendship Love Ethics studies morality 258 V. I. Mozgovoy (Donetsk) SUBJECT AND BOUNDARIES OF MODERN RUSSIAN STUDIES IN CONDITIONS OF GLOBALIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL IDENTITY Statement of the problem. The current state of Russian linguistics with different Municipal budgetary preschool educational institution "Kindergarten of general developmental type "Scarlet Flower" "Cultivating tolerance in ourselves and in children" Consultation for parents Prepared by: Section 13. SECOND WORLD WAR. THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR Topic 13.1. Pre-war diplomacy. On the eve of the world war. Plan: 1. Exacerbation of conflicts in Asia 2. Problems of collective security in Europe TOPIC 6. SOCIOLOGY OF CONFLICT AND DEVIANT BEHAVIOR Social conflict is a clash of opposing interests, goals and views of subjects of social interaction (individuals, social groups, NATIONAL SECURITY AND NATIONAL INTERESTS OF RUSSIA Russia is one of the largest countries in the world, with rich historical and cultural traditions. Its economic, scientific, technical and military potential, UDC 316.334.5 (470.6) A.Yu. Shadzhe State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Adyghe State University" Maikop, Russia INTERACTION OF NATURE AND HUMAN IN THE CAUCASUS REGION The article discusses the mountainous Caucasus, which gave rise to Municipal budgetary preschool educational institution “Kindergarten 8”, Nakhodka Report for the presentation Topic: “Creating a system of work to protect the rights and dignity of the child” Completed by the teacher: CODE OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS FOR MEDICAL WORKERS OF THE REPUBLIC OF KARELIA The Code of Professional Ethics for Medical Workers of the Republic of Karelia (hereinafter referred to as the Code) is a document defining the totality Adopted by the Council of the Belgorod Regional Association of Trade Union Organizations on 01.03. 2016 resolution 13 - Code of professional ethics of trade union workers (activists) of the Belgorod regional association Last week, the entire Russian parliamentary delegation refused to go to the capital of Finland. Because the head of the State Duma of Russia Sergei Naryshkin, along with six other parliamentarians, was included in the sanctions Conflict in the professional sphere Psychologist GAU SO MO "Dmitrovsky KTsSON" M. Yu. Piskareva Conflict is a stage of a conflict situation, characterized by a clash of subjects based on opposing interests, When developing the lesson, we used: video materials, documents, material for student messages based on the presentation of A.I. Chernov T.V. Koval First World War The First World War, which did not become the last HISTORY AND SOCIAL SCIENCE Author: Baykuatov Salamat Ongarbaevich, student of grade 3 “B” Leader: Olga Anatolyevna Mikhailovskaya, primary school teacher, State Budgetary Educational Institution “Secondary School 294”, St. Petersburg REASONS OF FAILURES Man in a global world, grade 0 Explanatory note The work program is developed on the basis of: - the program “Social studies. Man in a global world. Global peace in the 21st century. 0-grades" for general education Shagov Andrey Evgenievich - head of the department (foreign military history) of the Research Institute (military history) of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces, colonel, candidate of history I approve.r MBUK "TKO".A. Petrushenko CODE of professional ethics for employees of the municipal budgetary cultural institution "TULA CONCERT ASSOCIATION" INTRODUCTION Professional ethics exists The end of World War II. The defeat of Japan E.E. Vyazemsky, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor Plan 1 Defeat of Japan... 3 2 Historical significance of the Victory of the Soviet people... 6 2 1 DEFEAT OF JAPAN After May 9, 1945 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Federal state budgetary educational institution of higher professional education "UFA STATE AVIATION TECHNICAL UDC 371 STRATEGIES OF BEHAVIOR OF TEENAGERS IN A CONFLICT SITUATION Evdokimova Elena Leontyevna Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Associate Professor Belarusian State Pedagogical University named after. M. Tanka Republic DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES AND PUBLIC SECURITY OF THE PETROVSKY ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND ARTS (OSB PANI) P.I. YUNATSKEVICH LEGAL FRAMEWORKS OF PUBLIC CONTROL OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT OF CIVIL SERVANTS Section 1. POST-WAR WORLD ORDER Topic 1.1. International situation. International organizations Lesson topic: Formation of the UN and the formation of bipolar coexistence. Plan: 1. Formation of the UN. Role (VISION PROJECT) 3rd WORLD TURKIC FORUM (28-30 May 2014, Edirne) Main topic - 1 Turkic Republics; Cultural diplomacy and tourism Considering the geographical distribution of the Turkic republics, Content notes of lectures on “Philosophy” As you know, the word “philosophy” itself arose on the basis of two ancient Greek words: “love” and “wisdom”. Literally translated, “philosophy” means “love of wisdom.” Speech by the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan N.A. Nazarbayev at the plenary session of the Netherlands Nuclear Security Summit, The Hague, March 24, 2014 Your Excellencies! Dear Summit participants! FEDERAL STATE BUDGETARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION "ORENBURG STATE AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY" Faculty of Secondary Vocational Education APPROVED Chairman 1. Planned results of mastering the academic subject Personal results - the formation of the foundations of Russian civic identity, a sense of pride in one’s Motherland, the Russian people and the history of Russia; formation APPROVED by the Minutes of the Board of the OPEN JOINT STOCK COMPANY "INTERNATIONAL BANK OF FINANCE AND INVESTMENTS" dated November 10, 2008 12 Chairman of the Board of the OPEN JOINT STOCK COMPANY "INTERNATIONAL" Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation Schoolchildren Olympiad SPEECH by the Deputy Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers of Turkmenistan, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan R. Meredov at the 63rd session of the UN General Assembly (September 29, 2008, New York) Dear 1.8. This Code defines the basic standards of professional ethics, which: - regulate relations between employees, students and their parents (legal representatives); - protect their humanity Alexander Vladimirov President of the College of Military Experts of Russia Member of the National Strategy Council Candidate of Political Sciences Author of the fundamental work “Fundamentals of the General Theory of War” Major General MILITARY ACADEMY OF THE GENERAL STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Implementation of state policy in ensuring the national security of the Russian Federation Deputy Chief of the Military MINISTRY OF DEFENSE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION CONCEPTUAL VIEWS ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION IN THE INFORMATION SPACE 2011 CONTENTS Introduction 3 1 Basic terms and definitions. S.V. Utkin. Over time, the understanding will prevail in Russia that the post-Soviet world in which we found ourselves after the collapse of the USSR is not a deviation from the norm, but a completely stable environment in which one can live and achieve TOPIC OF DISCUSSION CONFLICTS It is not people themselves who conflict, but their motives, goals, and views. Conflict (from Latin - clash) is a collision of opposing goals, interests, positions, Conflicts and ways to resolve them. Not a single conflict was resolved by violence. You can win or lose, but sooner or later you will still have to negotiate. Roman Zlotnikov. Conflict is inevitable Fundamentals of the general theory of war Modern war theory confirms the correctness of Orwell's paradoxical conclusion that : “Peace is war.” It is believed that “war” is when “planes are bombing, tanks are shooting, explosions are thundering, soldiers are killing each other, the troops of the sides are “moving the front line”, causing death and destruction, and so on, but today this is not the case at all. . Modern war is like radiation: everyone knows about it, and everyone is afraid of it; but no one feels it, it is not visible or tangible, and it seems to practically not exist; but the war is going on because people are dying, states are collapsing and nations are disappearing. The first to disappear from the history of mankind are precisely those states and peoples who, even dying in it, stubbornly do not notice or do not want to notice the war being waged against them. This is how the USSR died, and Russia can still die. I consider it my duty to recall the strategic axiom, according to which - “All other things being equal, a state waging war will always defeat its enemy who is not waging war.” Let us give only a few basic provisions of the theory of war. War and Peace- there are only stages (cycles and rhythms) of the existence of humanity (and power); WORLD- there is a way of fulfilling the roles formed by the last war, he creates the potential for change, and this is his work and his “business”; WAR- there is a method of structuring, that is, a method of transition to a new model of the architecture of the world and its management, a method of redistributing old ones and obtaining (conquering) new places, roles and statuses of states. War redistributes the roles and statuses of its participants, it realizes the potential for change, redistributes it, and this is its “work” and its “business”. War is the same natural state of civilization as peace, since it is only a phase of the cycle of its existence, a certain outcome of the world and a procedure for the formation of its new architecture, a change in existing paradigms, roles and resources, including global (regional, state) resources. management War is an eternal, objective and permanent process. War is a social process characterized by the purposeful struggle of geopolitical subjects for the establishment of their victorious part in a new role and status (for confirmation of the old ones), and for the possibility of their forming a new picture of the world and its subsequent management. Actually armed struggle- only an extreme, extremely violent form of war. The purpose of the world war- not the destruction of the enemy, but a forceful redistribution of the role functions of states. All goals of the war are exclusively political in nature. The scale of the war ( total or limited war) and its severity depend solely on the decisiveness of the political goals of the parties. War always ends not in peace, but in the victory of one of the sides, while any conflict can be resolved, that is, “removed,” since victory in it is not necessary.” In modern war, its object becomes not so much the actual armed or economic components of the state, but rather its national values, since only they make the nation and the state what they are in the history of mankind; changing them is the main task of war. The main "prize" of the war is the expansion not so much of the geopolitical and economic “resource field” as the expansion of the complementary (friendly) value area of the winner, since only the mutual complementarity of nations (that is, the friendly compatibility of the value foundations of their existence) gives that benevolent (favorable) internal and external climate of their international (mutual) coexistence, and is the best guarantee against mutual aggression, which, in turn, improves the nation’s chances for historical survival, and in the opposite case, worsens them. In other words, The main “prize” of the war is the national mentality of the defeated side, which was forcibly changed by the war. The price of war and victory in it directly depends on our understanding that victory is the salvation of the nation and its future, and defeat is slavery and the death (at least) of Russian civilization. As a result of the war: · winners- they will individually manage the entire world (region), that is, all its connections, use all its resources, and build the world architecture they need at their own discretion, securing their victory (themselves, in this status and capabilities) for centuries by creating an appropriate system of international rights; · defeated- will be governed by the winners, will become part of the supporting subsystem of the new global governance and will pay with their national interests, resources, territory, historical past, culture and future. According to the theory of war, war is an eternal form of existence and state of society, which is always resolved by the victory of the stronger and the beginning of the loser’s formation of the conditions for his victory in a new war, which is the motive and prerequisite for development. Despite the fact that, according to the theory of war, the war of civilizations is a war of meanings, in which the winner is not the side that wins space, resources, or even temporarily comes to control the enemy’s country, but the one that captures the future. The war of meanings and nerves is actually a war, and the basis of geopolitical interactions, the war of forces and means of armed struggle is only part of them. Thus, today the war is not for space or resources, today the war is for the future of the nation. The war for the future is a war for: · the very right of a nation to exist in history; · for her place and role in the world, obtained as a result of victory in the war; · for the formation of a post-war picture of the world and the participation of the nation in the new system of managing human society; · for the right to enjoy the strategic effects of their victory in the war, leading to an improvement in the conditions of national existence and an increase in the power of the nation. We are convinced that geopolitical strategies and technologies are being purposefully applied to Russia as new operational means of a world war. Geopolitical technologies - there are: systemic means of global governance; a set of coordinated direct and indirect actions of various scales applied by a geopolitical aggressor to its geopolitical enemy with the aim of eliminating it as a rival and an equal subject of planetary geopolitical interactions, up to the complete disintegration of its statehood. The main principle of their implementation is direct and open echeloned expansion, the implementation of which, the United States sows disbelief in the world in the possibility of an alternative to its eternal leadership. Conducted research shows that the main technologies of peacetime war are: the strategy of “organized chaos”; technology of “terror”, “freedom and human rights” and other geopolitical technologies. An important conclusion of the study is the statement that a state that is not aware of these strategies and technologies and does not recognize the signs of their application to itself is doomed to defeat. It is obvious that in addition to the “military” ones, the actual scientific foundations contained in the general theory of national strategy formulated by the author also have general methodological significance. Theory of national strategy, is based on the well-known thesis that the basis of all (and any) purposeful human activity (activities of the individual, society and state) are their needs and interests. These needs and interests can be generally formulated as follows: · The main need of man (humanity) is Life(basic biological context); · and his main interest is a decent life(basic social context). The following fundamental conclusion follows from this: the entire social life of a person should be aimed at realizing these main needs and interests of a person (individual, society and state), which are the main purpose of existence, and, therefore, the basis of social goal-setting. In relation to the state as the main supporting social system, this thesis has the appearance of a categorical imperative for its functioning. This categorical imperative, in the form of a sum of national goals, is formulated in the National State Idea of Russia, which, in turn, is achieved by the implementation of its National Strategy. National strategy simultaneously acts as a theory, practice and art of government (to achieve national goals) and as a system of private strategies (including as a sum of technologies), that is, strategies pursuing the most important strategic goals within the framework of an overall strategic plan. It is based on its own theoretical and categorical basis, and has its own methodology for practical application .
National Strategy- is the purposeful activity of the state to manage the existence of the nation, in accordance with the path conscious and chosen by the nation, ensuring the unconditional preservation and development of Russia as a state, super-ethnic group and civilization; it must be conceived, planned and implemented on the scale of decades, centuries, eras and continents. It defines and implements a set of strategic (basic) goals, directions of existence and actions of the state, ensuring its civilizational survival and development, as well as the security, development and well-being of the country's population. National strategy is determined by the philosophy of existence of a nation (its national state idea), operates with large political, economic and social blocks, is carried out in the internal and external spheres of the state’s existence and manifests itself (including) in the area and through the system of strategic relations of states. The National Strategy should pursue goals that would flow from the National State Idea of Russia, and, in themselves, would serve as motivation for the constructive activities of the state, peoples and nations to achieve them. The main thing in the Strategy is its Goal and the “height of strategic motives”, which, by definition, must be moral and personify the common sense of the nation. Strategic goal of the state- is the intended result of the actions of a state of a strategic scale, the achievement of which leads to fundamental positive changes in the quality (and international status) of the state itself and creates the prerequisites for successful (safe) national development, it is achieved by carrying out a system of internal and external strategic actions. All of the above allows us to formulate certain ontological and methodological theses in the field of forming the basic foundations of Russia’s national strategy. The main components of the general scientific methodological structure of the national strategy of Russia, are: A. Ideological internal foundations of the National Strategy, which are based on the National State Idea of Russia. B. Military foundations of the National Strategy of Russia, which constitute the General Theory of War, as part of the cycle of planetary existence. B. General scientific foundations of the National Strategy of Russia contained in the General Theory of the National Strategy. D. External general civilizational foundations of the National Strategy of Russia, in the essence of which lie civilizational, geopolitical and ethnogenetic approaches to the analysis of strategic planetary interactions. It seems necessary to formulate the main methodological conclusion from the strategic assessment of the situation, set out in the form Strategic axiom: · Russia's national strategy should be; · The national strategy of Russia must be unified, since the national strategy in peacetime is the basis of the national strategy of the state implemented by it in wartime, since the strategy of war is only a continuation of the strategy of peace. The strategy must automatically include all the necessary calculations, structures and mechanisms of various states of power; · Russia's national strategy must be continuous, always provide and create conditions for continuous development and achievement of the basic goals of the nation in its changing existence; · The main task of current policy is to professionally, accurately and timely build and organize the activities of all institutions of the state and society in such a way that the results of their activities successfully solve the problems of Russia’s existence, in accordance with the goals and directions indicated by its national strategy. Conclusions on the first part 1. An assessment of the strategic planetary situation in the “Peace - War” paradigm allows us to conclude that today Russia is in a state of war. At the same time, all the main geopolitical players - the West-USA, China and the Muslim world are already waging war, both with each other and all together against Russia. The main goal of their war with Russia is the resources of planetary development available in its spaces. The main reason for the war of these geopolitical entities against Russia is its obvious state and military weakness, as well as strategic failure. 2. Since the world is in a state of permanent war, therefore, the presented “general theory of wars” is the correct methodological basis for the formation of Russia’s national strategy. 3. “Peace” and “war” are qualitatively different states of society, and, therefore, they have (should by definition have) different goal-setting, different coordinate systems of existence and different algorithms for the functioning of the state. 4. The continuity of war reveals the categorical imperative of the predominance of the military mobilization component of state development and mobilization-regulatory state practices .
5. These conclusions are the most important today, since it is known that a state of war implies: precise strategic planning; all types of mobilization (economic, resource, etc.) stresses; strict public administration, that is, a special mode of functioning of state power, which implies a rigid executive vertical, a special legal field for the activities of all subjects of the state and society, as well as personal responsibility of leaders of both state and public structures and citizens for their own actions; the presence (possibility) of non-economic coercion, restrictions on consumption and freedoms, and so on. 6. Geopolitical technologies, as new operational means of war, are capable of solving independent problems at the strategic level and achieving strategic goals. For example, deprive the state chosen as the target of national sovereignty. 7. Russia’s best strategy may be expansion into the world of our civilizational principles and the formation of its own geopolitical project. 8. When forming the national strategy of Russia, one must keep in mind the following: the only strategic goal of the state is exclusively and only the survival of the state and our special Russian civilization in general, and on this path the authorities should not have doubts about the completeness of the measures taken to solve this problem . 9. The lack of development of the national, actually civil national (state) strategy of Russia, understood as the theory, practice and art of government, and its conceptual apparatus, inevitably leads to the impossibility of its conscious and professional application in the real political life of the nation and state, which has a negative impact in all spheres of their life. Vladimirov A.. Monograph “Conceptual foundations of the national strategy of Russia. Political aspect", M.: "SCIENCE" RAS, 2007, p. 28 An illustration of the correctness of the thesis can be seen in the US National Security Doctrine of 1992, which stated: “... our strategy must be to prevent the emergence of any potential future global rival.” New York Times, March 8, 1992Reading into the greats
Eternal Clausewitz
Moscow - 2010
In the new theory of war, as in any scientific theory, the most important thing is complete certainty in understanding what is the subject of research and what is the main essence of the subject being studied.
^
War as a phenomenon and phenomenon
^
The phenomenon of war lies in the following logic of human existence, which we define as a postulate of the theory of war.
species struggle as a method of survival and development is inherent in all living things;
war as a phenomenon of the existence of human society is an exclusive specificity of the life activity of its subjects.
No.
Definition of the category "war"
Author/source
1.
This is a great thing for the state, this is the ground of life and death, this is the path of existence and death.
Sun Tzu 7
2.
The Father of all and the King; She determined for some to be gods, for others to be people; She made some slaves, others free.
Heraclitus of Ephesus 8
3.
The natural state of peoples.
Plato 9
4.
The action of two armies at war with each other in different ways, and both tend to achieve victory.
Montecuccoli 10
5.
An act of violence intended to force the enemy to carry out our will.
K. Clausewitz 11
6.
K. Clausewitz 12
7.
The greatest evil that can befall a state or nation.
Archduke Charles 13
8.
Chess game; the struggle of physical, intellectual and moral forces.
G. Delbrück
9.
Traumatic epidemic.
N. Pirogov 14
10.
Political and social earthquake.
A.A. Svechin 15
11.
Any prolonged conflict between rival political groups that is resolved by force of arms.
B.L. Montgomery 16
12.
A method of achieving political goals by resolving contradictions between states (groups or coalitions of states) using political, economic, financial, diplomatic, information, technological and other means in combination with the threat of use or direct use of the Armed Forces.
V.N. Samsonov 17
13.
Armed struggle between states or peoples, between classes within a state.
Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language 18
14.
A socio-political phenomenon, a special state of society associated with a sharp change in relations between states, peoples, social groups and the transition to the organized use of armed violence to achieve political goals.
Military encyclopedic dictionary 19
15.
...a form of resolving contradictions between states, peoples and social groups by means of...violence.
Military encyclopedia 20
This semantic series can be continued endlessly, therefore, it seems important to us to make the following statement (working hypothesis): war is diverse and multifaceted, it can be understood both as a factor and part of the cycle of human existence, and as a factor (armed, military means) of politics.
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.
^ PART ONE
Basic content and nature of war
1. About the essence of war
“Essence represents internal deep connections and relationships of a class of phenomena; a phenomenon is an expression of essence.
Since in this work it is not possible to annotate this chapter even in the abstract, we will allow ourselves to present here only a list of section headings of the chapter “Nature of War”, and fully present the 2nd section - “Definition”, 3rd section “Extreme Use of Violence” ”, 24th section “War is a continuation of politics only by other means”, and section 28 - “Conclusion for the theory” 34.
The goal is to deprive the enemy of the opportunity to resist.
^
War is a continuation of politics only by other means.
^
Conclusions for the theory.
***
^
2. The main content of war, its essence and nature, is “violence”
^
PART TWO
Basic postulates of the theory of war
^
Definitions of the Theory of War and Military Science in encyclopedic interpretations
The objective world is the only subject of knowledge, the source from which it can only draw its content. ... 46
».
To develop this definition, let us say that it is the objective modern world that gives us reason to draw new content for the formulation of a modern theory of war.
Further in the course of this work, more and more convincing evidence will be presented as to the need to create a modern theory 47
war, and completely new approaches to its formation.
^
The fact that the theory of war is part of science as a form of social, and we take the liberty of adding - national consciousness, is not subject to discussion.
We find the most detailed and accurate content of this concept in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, which defines that “theory” is a system of basic ideas in a particular branch of knowledge, generalizing experience, practice and reflecting the objective laws of nature, society and human thinking.
Each of these theories is formed based on the corresponding worldviews, the dominant military ideology, military policy and serves their goals.
classical theory of war;
class theory of war;
pluralistic theory of war;
positivist (pragmatic) theory of war;
biological theory of war;
religious theory of war;
technical-industrial theory of war.
^
Military encyclopedic dictionary,
gives the following definition of military science: “Military science, a system of knowledge about the laws and military-strategic nature of war, the construction and preparation of the Armed Forces and the country for war and methods of conducting armed struggle.Now , bearing in mind thatA theory is a system of basic ideas in a particular branch of knowledge and a form of scientific knowledge that gives a holistic idea of the patterns and essential connections of reality, let's give definitions Theories of war and military science in the author’s own interpretation.
Definitions of the theory of war and military science in the author’s own interpretation
^
The need to create a modern theory of war is caused by:
the lack of a developed, coherent, relatively complete and complete theory of war (the theory of war is not included in the list of military theories as such and is not taught as a subject of study even in the system of professional military education) and the need to create its new universal conceptual apparatus;
new trends in the development of humanity and significant new factors in its modern existence;
current military events of our time, requiring new thinking;
the need to introduce a new scientific apparatus of the theory of wars into the political and military practice of states;
the need to create, on the basis of the theory of war, an independent theory of national strategy and a theory of statecraft;
the need to identify new trends in political life and the development of military affairs, and their clarification in the interpretation of the concepts of the new theory of war;
the need to develop a theory of war that could be effectively used not only by nations disposed to expand their interests, influence and values, but also by peoples who are satisfied with their state borders and are concerned mainly about the security and preservation of their way of life;
the need to create an integral theory of wars, which would not be built on the absolutization of some opportunistic postulates of a nation considered today to be “strong”, but a non-opportunistic theory built on a new common sense, and in this regard, interesting and useful to all objects of society, as well as the theory, which would be a sound basis for the further development of military affairs within the framework of the positive development of humanity;
the need to summarize the practical and scientific experience of mankind in the field of wars, as well as the extreme need to formulate and introduce it into modern scientific life;
a certain dead end in military thought associated with the insufficiency of the existing scientific apparatus of this most important sphere of human activity, as well as with the obsolescence or revealed incorrectness of its important postulates and parts;
the extremely high activity of a large mass of modern military experts and writers who arbitrarily interpret the military sphere of human activity, which they poorly understand, and whose creativity introduces additional disorganization (vulgarization and simplification) into the understanding (rethinking) of military affairs as a whole;
the need to introduce a new theory of war into scientific circulation, the educational process of higher education institutions, as well as into the political and military practice of modern Russia.
^ THEORY OF WAR- a system of basic ideas in the field of struggle of subjects of human society of any form of organization for survival and better conditions of existence, summarizing experience, practice and reflecting objective patterns of development, society and human thinking, a form of scientific knowledge that gives a holistic idea of patterns and essential connections and interactions of parts human society in this area.
It is known that one of the main requirements for science is the evidence of its provisions and the possibility of repeating experience.
identifies the main and new trends in the development of humanity and the country, as well as their content and degree of influence on the development of the nation;
develops recommendations for the country's top political leadership on issues of the country's life as a subject of planetary interactions;
identifies the need to make necessary adjustments to current policies and government practices;
offers the political (and military) leadership of the country options for national strategy, war plans and options for necessary structural changes in the main areas of the functioning of the state, and so on;
determines the direction of development of structures in all spheres of national defense;
takes part in the formation of the national strategy, the development of all the most important national documents at the doctrinal level and the state development agenda;
determines the required level and quality of military education for the political leadership and senior command staff of the state, its officer corps and professional military education;
manages the development of its sectoral and specific units;
informs the state and the public about the main scientific results achieved in its field.
^
Basic postulates of the theory of war
Probably, our life, determined by the Creator, is structured in such a way that all social structures historically change in the direction of a positive complication of the world.
^ Important remark
^ Thus
About the law of "competition"
Transcript
Russian students won the ICPC World Programming Championship
“Denisovan man” “inherited” most of all in the genome of Asians
Action to intimidate checkpoints in Chelyabinsk What is the Concept of Public Safety