Home Horoscope for tomorrow Academy of Military Sciences of the Russian Federation. Problems of war and peace in various philosophies and historical periods Philosophy of violence in war and the army

Horoscope for tomorrow

Academy of Military Sciences of the Russian Federation. Problems of war and peace in various philosophies and historical periods Philosophy of violence in war and the army

Over 5,000 years, more than 15,000 wars have taken place. More than 4 billion people died in these wars. The periods of relative peace added up to only 292 years out of 5,000 years. In the 20th century, more than 200 wars took place, more than 150 million people died.

At first XXI century, mankind has faced three types of wars:

Traditional "hot" wars (classic wars in the image of World Wars II and II or the American-Vietnamese War).

Non-traditional atypical "cold" wars (information, diplomatic, energy, psychological, raw materials, economic, trade).

Anti-terrorism wars

Due to the sufficient prevalence of war in the life of mankind, the history of philosophical and military-theoretical thought is rich in various concepts and theories of its origin and essence. In the most general form, the following historical stages of development philosophical knowledge about war:

a) the philosophy of the Ancient East:

War is the moral disease of mankind (Confucius);

War is subordinated to the interests of politics and can be waged both by means of armed violence and by other violent actions (Sun Tzu);

War is one of the forms of human suffering, constituting the meaning and content of people's lives (Gautama, Patanjali);

b) ancient social philosophy:

War is a natural and eternal state of society, its necessity is dictated by the need to conquer slaves, i.e. economic and political explanation of war (Plato, Aristotle);

War is the law of being, which determines the beginning of the world, the father of all things, (Heraclitus);

c) the philosophy of the Middle Ages:

War is a manifestation of divine will, the punishment of people for sins and deviation from religious faith (Augustine the Blessed, Thomas Aquinas);

War as a consequence of the social disunity of people from an economic and geographical point of view (Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Khaldun);

d) social philosophy of the Renaissance:

War is a consequence of necessity and the cause of the state, which brings it glory or shame (N. Machiavelli);

War is opposed to all human beings, it is the root cause of all troubles and evils (Erasmus of Rotterdam);

e) the philosophy of the Enlightenment and the New Age:

War is the result of the property division of people in society, the desire of a person for property (J. J. Rousseau, Voltaire, P. A. Holbach);

War is a consequence of the hostility of people, rivalry and distrust between them, the desire for honor and glory (T. Hobbes, G. Leibniz);

War grows out of politics and represents its continuation by violent means (K. Clausewitz, I. Kant, G. Hegel);

f) social philosophy of the XIX - XX centuries:

The basis for the emergence of wars is the emotions and will of individuals (A. Schopenhauer, F. Nietzsche, N. Berdyaev);

War is an irrational, hard to explain phenomenon in people's lives (L. Tolstoy, A. Bergson, N. Lossky);

The war is generated by an exploiting society, its roots lie in private property and the politics of the ruling elite (Marxist-Leninist philosophy).

Recently, there have been many new concepts and approaches in the study of war. They can be classified in the following main areas, based on the ways of explaining the origin and essence of war:

a) the concept of a natural explanation of wars (R. McDougal, J. Blaney, J. Dollard, 3. Freud, etc.):

Social Darwinist theories ("zones of struggle for existence", "natural selection");

Geopolitical theories ("lack" of territory, ""security of natural borders");

Psychological theories ("eternal instincts", "original psychological cycle");

Neo-Malthusian theories ("population explosion");

Neo-racist theories ("natural exclusivity" of a certain race or nation);

Behavioral theories (absolutization of the influence of behavior on the occurrence of wars);

Astrological (cosmological) theories (absolutization of the role of the cosmos in the emergence of wars);

b) the concept of social determinism of wars (S. Jolie, D. Douglas, R. Pipes, M. Taylor, G. Morgenthau, A. Schlesinger, W. Whitworth):

Theory of violence (war as a form of violence is inherent in society);

Socio-historical theories (war is one of the phases of the eternal cycle, it is absolute, and peace is a relative and temporary phenomenon);

Socio-economic theories (war as a result of the struggle for property);

Socio-political theories (absolutization of the role of politics, ideology, social institutions in the emergence of crisis situations leading to war);

Theories of "national sovereignty" (independent states, independence, sovereignty - the basis for the emergence of wars);

Theories of "ideological differences" (spiritual contradictions, ideological differences give rise to war);

c) the concept of technical explanation of wars (Z. Brzezinski, G. Kahn, D. Bell, R. Aron, W. Rostow, O. Toffler, D. Platt, A. Winner, T. Schelling, J. Bernheim, E. Fromm , J. Ellul, G. Marcuse, J. Galbraith):

Optimistic technocratic theories (industrial society, post-industrial society, service society, information society, third wave society, growth stages, 2000 society);

Pessimistic technophobic theories (the idea of the price of progress, its negative consequences, the limits of growth, the stagnation of society, the need to humanize technology);

d) the concept of military or military-technical determinism (G. Kahn, T. Schelling, J. Ellul):

The theory of "military-technological" determinism (military equipment of a potential enemy makes it increase its power, which leads to wars);

The theory of "military-technical pessimism" (military equipment turns into a self-sufficient force and is itself capable of causing wars, failures in equipment and personnel errors can also lead to the accidental outbreak of war);

e) the concept of individual (personal) explanation (V.Pareto, G.Mosca. E.Michels, J..Gelbraith, D.Bell, T.Carlyle, M.Weber, D.Schultz, R.Little, G.Perry, N. Berdyaev, A. Bergson, L. Gumilyov): the theory of elites, the theory of political participation, the theory of personalism, the theory of passionarity;

f) the concept of theological (divine) determinism (predestination) of wars (G. Lasswell, G. Gundlach): Christian theories, Islamic theories, Buddhist theories, theories of national religions and cults;

g) pluralistic concepts (Yu. Lider, M. Haas): war arises as a result of many (group) reasons, and not from any one;

h) indeterministic concepts (B. Russell, H. Reichenbach, F. Frank): war is an accidental phenomenon, a consequence of fate, fate, its occurrence cannot be known.

In our vision of the problem, we proceed from the fact that wars, like other phenomena of social life, are of an earthly nature. They are unleashed and led by specific people, not by supernatural forces. Without denying the complexity and inconsistency of the process of cognition and the war itself as a social phenomenon, we believe that the theological and indeterministic explanations of war are not fruitful and productive enough, although they certainly have the right to exist.

So, the analysis of the military-philosophical concepts of the past and present allows us to conclude that war is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon of social life. Most of the presented views focus our attention on one side or another of the essence of war. Based on this understanding, we can talk about its global and universal character. On the other hand, war is seen as a global problem in terms of the danger it poses to all mankind in modern conditions.

An analysis of war from a philosophical point of view includes:

a) clarification of its essence and content;

b) understanding the sources, causes and mechanism of occurrence;

c) implementation of typology and classification;

d) study of the nature of war and its role in history;

g) consideration of results, outcomes and consequences;

f) substantiation of the possibilities, ways and means of preventing (ending) wars, excluding them from the life of civilization.

Let's consider these components in more detail.

source of wars it is customary to consider the social disunity of mankind into various groups (layers, peoples, races, states, ethnic groups, religious denominations, etc.), which forms the basis for the emergence of opposing motives, goals and interests, under certain conditions, leading to the outbreak of war. Finding out the source of wars involves answering the question of why wars exist as a social phenomenon in society. From the source of wars in general should be distinguished causes of each particular war to understand why certain wars arise. The source of wars is connected with the essence, and the causes with a specific phenomenon as an expression of this essence or with the content of a specific war.

War as a social phenomenon has many aspects. It has many facets and cuts, the most important of which are:

a) consideration of war through its opposite, its relationship with the world;

b) understanding the war through a broader concept, i.e. through society, as its peculiar specific state;

c) consideration of the war through the history of the development of mankind, as one of the phases of social development;

d) analysis of the war through a specific system of contradictions, conditions and reasons that directly lead to its occurrence (including political ones). 1

Besides, war, as a special, specific phenomenon of social life, can be considered as:

a) the means used by politicians to achieve their goals. This tool can be used in a variety of ways. In this aspect, the war is addressed to political leaders, governments, states, their heads and other political entities;

b) the process of interaction, armed clash, armed struggle of two or more resisting social subjects. With this hypostasis, war is directed to the armed forces, to the army, to the military leaders;

c) a certain state of society in all its dimensions, which is characterized by the dominance of armed violence and the methods and means corresponding to it in solving any social problems. This side of the war is addressed to society as a whole, to all its spheres and relations, to the population, to social organizations and institutions. 2

It follows that the war and the process of its occurrence, at least, is subject to the action of the following groups of laws: politics, armed struggle, society as a whole, in their interconnection and interdependence. Restricting the essence of war only to politics in modern conditions no longer seems fruitful and productive enough. This is due to the fact that:

a) in the ontological aspect, politics does not always precede war (recall the wars of primitive society);

b) in the logical aspect, cause and effect are identified if we consider the war only as a continuation of politics;

c) in the epistemological aspect, in this case, the essence of war is reduced to the essence of politics, then to the essence of economics, and so on without end, and the essence of war itself as a form of armed violence remains unclear. 3

At the same time, it must be emphasized that even today we in no way renounce the political dimension of war. Politics still plays a crucial role in the preparation and unleashing of wars, but it is necessary to consider its role in the overall context of economic, social, spiritual and

other factors in the outbreak of war.

Due to this a natural question arises: what is the true essence of war? It seems that the following approaches can be used as conceptual approaches to understanding the problem under study, to penetrating into the essence of war:

a) war is a large-scale (at least bilateral) use of armed violence for political purposes, associated with the transfer of the economy and the entire life of society to a war footing, the widespread and widespread mobilization of the population into the armed forces, the deployment and full combat readiness of all their groups and legal the act of declaring a state of war by heads of state and (or) legislative authorities;

b) war is a macro-social conflict, a special conflict state of society, contradictory social relations, in which the political goals of states, peoples and individual social strata and communities are achieved by active opposition with massive use of armed violence; 4

c) war is a form of armed social violence, which is realized in the activities of states and social communities.

So, in order to understand the essence of war, it is necessary to take into account the following signs:

War is a social phenomenon, a relatively independent area (sphere, phenomenon) of social life, a specific social reality;

War is a macro-social conflict in a divided society;

The presence of at least two subjects participating in it;

The goals and objectives of these subjects are opposite;

Lack of certain resources to achieve these goals;

Availability of means of armed violence on both sides; the possibility and willingness to use them to resolve conflicting goals and objectives of subjects (states, social communities);

Massive and large-scale use of means of armed violence on both sides, or at least on one side, subject to some resistance on the other;

Active opposition of subjects to each other;

The legal act of declaring a state of war by heads of state and (or) legislative authorities (in accordance with the constitutions of the states participating in the war and the powers of the authorities in them).

Source and causes form the basis the origin of wars. In addition, it includes:

a) an occasion that precedes war, but does not give rise to it;

b) the conditions that determine the specific form of the outbreak of war;

c) social forces interested in starting a war.

All these elements are in a dialectical unity and constitute a kind of system, which can also be called the complete or cumulative cause of the emergence of each specific war.

This is the mechanism for the emergence of wars from the point of view of the main elements. As for the processes occurring in this case, they usually single out the formation (formation): a source of war - a source of military danger - a hotbed of war - a hotbed of tension - an armed conflict (incident, action, provocation) - own war. In each particular war, this mechanism operates in a peculiar, unique and unrepeatable way, reflecting the specific situational realities of a particular country (region) at a given particular time. But the common elements of this mechanism somehow take place in every real war and are manifested in its statics and dynamics of origin and genesis.

In addition, one can single out the following stages (phases) of preparing and unleashing a war: the emergence of contradictions - the aggravation of tension - the threatened period - the crisis - the war. From the point of view of the main stages of the emergence and development of war, sometimes they distinguish: preparatory measures in peacetime - the beginning of a war or armed conflict - escalation (expansion) of armed violence - de-escalation and cessation of armed struggle. At the same time, it is possible to single out different periods in the process of preparing and waging war: threatened (confrontational) initial (before the entry of the main forces) - subsequent (one or more) - final (achievement of the main goals).

The emergence of war, the maturation of its sources and causes is a complex, contradictory and rather lengthy process. War may break out relatively suddenly, but this process almost never happens by chance. It is always based on the following elements: the coming to power of militantly aggressive political forces - the transformation of the material, technical and organizational preparation for war into the main direction of the state's activity - the militarization of society, the incitement of militancy (racism, nationalism, chauvinism) - the intensification of confrontational actions to aggravate internal and the external environment - the search for and creation of reasons for conflict (war).

War must be distinguished from military conflict, which in the narrow sense (armed conflict) "precedes" the war in terms of scope, goals and means, and in the broadest sense - includes all the clashes of the opposing sides (including world wars). However, in any case, it should be noted that the essence of war and military conflict is the same. The difference consists only in the degree of filling of this essence, i.e. in quantitative characteristics that determine the scale, spatio-temporal scope, content and specific form of occurrence, course and consequences.

Here, in passing, we note that war is one of the most rapidly developing historical phenomena. With the advent of the latest types of weapons (nuclear missile, chemical, biological, informational, etc.), its content and methods of conducting are changing. However, the essence of war as a macro-social conflict of disunited groups of humanity, resolved by violent means, remains unchanged. From a genetic point of view, war is generated on the basis of contradictions between different states and peoples, regardless of the weapons they have. And from the point of view of the expediency and admissibility of war in modern conditions, it must be emphasized that wars in general should be excluded from the life of mankind, and even more so, the latest types of wars are unacceptable, dangerous not only for their participants, but for all mankind.

Both war and military conflict in their origin, functioning and development are subject to the action of certain laws and regulations. In the most general form, they can be divided into the following main groups:

a) the laws of the outbreak of war (genetic) - we have already spoken about them above, analyzing the sources, causes and mechanism for preparing and unleashing wars;

b) laws of functioning and development (ontological):

General, which relate to the war as an integral socio-historical phenomenon and reveal its essential connections with the main aspects of public life:

The dependence of the nature and extent of the use of the state's military force on its political goals;

Dependence of the course and outcome of the war on the ratio of economic factors of the belligerent states (coalitions);

The dependence of the course and outcome of the war on the ratio of the social forces of the opponents;

The dependence of the course and outcome of the war on the ratio of the scientific and technical potentials of the parties;

The dependence of the course and outcome of the war on the ratio of the spiritual and moral-psychological forces of the participants;

The dependence of the course and outcome of the war on the ratio of the actual military potentials and the forces of the opposing sides;

Laws of warfare (any form of "hot" or "cold"):

Counteracting destructive and constructive efforts (the need for maximum destruction of the enemy with minimal own losses);

Correspondence of military objectives with the available forces and means (the balance of forces is intended to determine the choice between armed and unarmed means of warfare, as well as the nature of their use);

Interaction of available forces and means, coordination of efforts in their application;

Replenishment of forces (the law of "nutrition 7") during the conduct of war;

Unity of information and disinformation;

Anticipation of the enemy in actions (the law of surprise);

The laws of armed struggle in general:

Unity of fighting in space and time;

The uneven distribution of forces and means in combat formations (operational formations): as a rule, their superior forces against the enemy's most vulnerable spots;

Stability of communication and command and control of troops and weapons;

Interaction of forces and means, as well as military operations by levels (political - strategic - operational - tactical);

Surprise and secrecy of hostilities;

The laws of the individual sides of the armed struggle:

Strategies - operational art - tactics;

Offensive - defense;

Combat operations of regular armed forces - other power structures and formations - irregular units and subunits (militias, partisans, etc.);

Ground combat operations - sea - air - space;

The use of certain types of the Armed Forces and branches of troops (forces).

The laws of armed struggle and its individual aspects are the subject of study of military science as a whole and its individual sections. The rest of the laws are at the center of philosophy's comprehension. 5 On the basis of the laws of war, the concepts of national security, military doctrines, plans for military construction and the principles of military art are formulated. At the same time, the laws of war, like most social laws, are of a probabilistic-statistical nature and operate in the form of trends. This is largely due to the fact that war is a non-linear process unfolding under conditions of fundamental uncertainty. K. Clausewitz once pointed to this, and today such ideas are characteristic of I. Prigozhin, R. Abdeev and Yu. Urmantsev. 13

The most important problem of philosophical understanding of wars is their classification. It allows us to comprehend their role in history, on the basis of highlighting the common and recurring in wars that are different in content, nature and causes. Typology of wars can be done for a variety of reasons:

a) by the time of action (based on historical epochs, stages and periods of human development, the following series (chains, levels) are distinguished):

Formational - according to socio-economic formations (wars of primitive, slave-owning, feudal, etc. society);

Civilizational - based on civilizations as types of society;

Culturological - by types of culture;

Technological - based on the development of technology (wars of pre-industrial, industrial, post-industrial, information, etc. societies);

Event-based - according to the principle of highlighting major historical milestones (dominants) in the development of mankind (wars of ancient, ancient, medieval

society, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, Modern and Contemporary times, modern society).

In addition, this classification can be supplemented depending on:

Type of states participating in the war, forms and regimes of state power (monarchy - republic, totalitarian - authoritarian - democratic);

A specific state (based on the geostrategic position and the so-called historical interests and priorities: USA - Latin America and the Far East, Great Britain - the Balkans, the Caucasus and Central Asia, France and Germany - Alsace and Lorraine, Russia - the Caucasus, the Balkans and Central Asia, etc. .P.).

b) by socio-political content (reasons, goals, forces, consequences) or character:

Fair (progressive, legal): wars in defense of the Fatherland, national liberation wars, civil wars against a totalitarian regime;

Unjust (regressive, illegal): predatory, colonial, suppression of oppressed social strata and groups;

c) according to the composition of participants and possible consequences: world coalition-regional-local-intrastate;

d) by duration: transient and protracted;

e) by means of reference:

Without the use of armed violence (informational, psychological, diplomatic, economic, raw materials, energy, environmental, technological, etc.);

With the use of conventional means of armed struggle;

With the use of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological, with the use of high-precision weapons);

f) in the sense of the contradictions to be resolved:

Between developed countries;

Between developing states;

Between backward states;

Between different types of states;

Intrastate.

g) According to the nature and methods of conducting hostilities, 6 generations are distinguished in the historical development of wars:

Colonial

Civil

World

Nuclear

High-tech ("post-nuclear")

Military and police operations.

The historical role of this or that war can be clarified in many respects by analyzing its results, outcomes and consequences. These are very close, but not identical, concepts:

a) the results of the war represent the position and balance of forces of the warring parties at the time of the end of hostilities;

b) the results are the results of the war fixed by international treaties;

c) consequences - characterize the impact of the war on subsequent international relations. 6

The consequences may be:

a) by time: immediate - remote;

Humanitarian (victims): irrevocable and sanitary (temporary);

Economic (costs and destruction);

Social (changes in the social, demographic, national, ethnic, racial, religious, professional structure of society);

Political (changing the role of the state, political parties and social movements in the life of society, changing the nature of the exercise of democratic rights and freedoms of citizens);

Spiritual (change in goals, motives, attitudes, social ideology and psychology of people);

Environmental (destruction of vegetation, soil, crops, air pollution, damage to nuclear power plants, hydroelectric power plants, chemical plants, etc.);

Actually military (selection of the most effective means of armed struggle, methods of conducting combat operations, principles of recruitment, etc.).

Recently, it has been customary to single out the historical consequences of wars as a kind of integral, total result of the impact on society and its subsystems of all elements of the spectrum of the consequences of wars of a given era. 7

Practical measures to resolve and end current military conflicts can be:

a) military forces:

Blocking the forces of the aggressor by the forces of the world community or a group of states;

Concession to the aggressor;

Mutual compromise;

- "extinguishing" of an acute conflict and turning it into a smoldering, chronic one;

b) political:

International conferences, negotiations, consultations with the participation of all interested parties;

Sanctions, deprivation of privileges, restrictions on trade, scientific and other ties;

diplomatic pressure;

Pacifist and peacemaking public organizations;

Provision by the world community of guarantees of equal security to participants in military conflicts;

Refusal of participants from uncompromisingness and ultimatum, flexibility and willingness to make mutual, reasonable concessions;

Correct and understandable communication to the opposing side of their goals and interests, taking into account the interests of other participants in the conflict.

The ratio of violent and non-violent (military and political) means of resolving current military conflicts makes it possible to identify possible ways to establish, ensure and maintain peace, models and mechanisms for the safe existence of mankind, which will be described in more detail in the second part of this publication.

Among methods of preventing wars and ending current military conflicts the most commonly used in history are:

a) "avoidance" of the conflict (ignoring the enemy, lack of reaction to the actions of the opposite side, voluntary or forced withdrawal from the political arena of one or another political or military leader, the threat of such withdrawal, emigration from the country);

b) “postponing” or conserving the conflict (surrendering to the mercy of the winner, avoiding confrontation with the hope that circumstances will change and more favorable conditions will be created for resolving the conflict);

c) negation or substitution of the conflict (moving it to another area, not extinguishing or inciting this conflict, but giving it the opportunity to smolder);

d) confrontation (transferring the conflict into a state of active antagonism in order to resolve it as quickly and less painfully as possible);

e) negotiations, meetings, consultations, international or regional conferences (one on one or with the participation of guarantors, intermediaries);

f) arbitration (voluntary transfer by the parties to the dispute of their own contradictions to a third party, the decision of which is mandatory for the subjects of the conflict);

g) reconciliation (cessation of the conflict, elimination of the contradictions that caused its occurrence). 8

The alternative to war is peace. In modern conditions, the world becomes essentially the most important condition and way for the survival of human civilization. Today it is no longer enough to understand peace as the absence of war. It is necessary to talk about peace as the absence of contradictions that give rise to wars, because such a peace is based on disarmament, on equality and equal security, on respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, on respect for the right of choice of peoples. Like war, peace is closely linked to politics. In this regard, peace can be considered as a continuation of the policy or the policy itself of mutually beneficial cooperation (non-violence) in various fields: economic, social, cultural, spiritual, diplomatic, military, etc.

FINANCIAL ACADEMY

UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Department of Philosophy

Abstract on the topic:

Problems of war and peace in various philosophical and historical periods

student group K-1-6

Danilova E. E.

Scientific director

Assoc. Ioseliani Ya. D.

Introduction 3

I. The concept of war. Relationship between military and political goals 4

1. Clausewitz's philosophical doctrine of war. inevitability

hostilities 4

II. Views on the war in historical perspective 6

1. Antiquity 6

2. Problems of the world and the Christian religion 7

III. New approaches to the philosophical problem of war and peace 8

1. Age of Enlightenment 8

2. Modernity 11

Conclusion 12

List of used literature 14

Introduction

On May 9, 1995, Russia solemnly celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of victory in the Great Patriotic War. Today, rethinking history, we must bow our heads before the greatest sacrifices suffered by our people in the bloodiest war that mankind has ever known. We should pay tribute to the memory of the Soviet soldier who liberated the world from fascist aggression, the citizens of the country who worked in the rear for the benefit of victory.

These days, all people on the planet remembered the horrors of war, felt in full measure the evil that it brings. The memory of this is still alive, but, unfortunately, wars are still being waged on earth today, they have not disappeared, they have not become a thing of the past. The real military conflict in Russia, in a country that has experienced the hardships and burdens of civil and world wars, makes one painfully think about the necessity and inevitability of war as such, the age-old contradiction between war and peace.

I. The concept of war. Relationship between military and political goals

1. Clausewitz's philosophical doctrine of war.

The inevitability of hostilities

Very interesting, in my opinion, are the ideas put forward in the book "On War" by Carl von Clausewitz. Brought up under the influence of the German school of philosophy, and especially Hegel, he developed a theory about war and the influence of politics on it.

Consider his definition of war. The philosopher wrote: “If we want to embrace the thought as one whole, all the countless martial arts that make up the war, it is best to imagine a fight between two wrestlers. Each of them seeks, by means of physical violence, to force the other to do his will; his immediate aim is to crush the enemy and thereby render him incapable of any further resistance.”

So, war, according to Clausewitz, is an act of violence aimed at forcing the enemy to do our will. Violence uses the inventions of the arts and the discoveries of the sciences to counter violence. The imperceptible, barely worth mentioning, restrictions that it imposes on itself in the form of the customs of international law accompany violence without actually weakening its effect.

In addition to single combat, Clausewitz is characterized by another comparison of war: “Combat in large and small transactions is the same as cash payment in bill transactions: no matter how remote this retribution, no matter how rarely the moment of realization comes, someday its hour will come. ”

Further, Clausewitz introduces two concepts that, in his opinion, are necessary for the analysis of war: "the political goal of war" and "the goal of military operations." The political aim of the war, as the original motive, must be a very significant factor: the less sacrifice we demand from our adversary, the less resistance we can expect from him. But the more insignificant our demands, the weaker will be our preparation. Further, the smaller our political goal, the lower the price it has for us and the easier it is to refuse to achieve it, and therefore our efforts will be less significant.

Indeed, the same political goal can have very different effects not only on different nations but also on the same people in different eras. Between two peoples, two states, relations can be so strained that a completely insignificant political pretext for war in itself will cause a tension that far exceeds the significance of this pretext, and will cause a genuine explosion.

Sometimes a political goal may coincide with a military one, such as the conquest of certain regions; sometimes a political goal will not be in itself suitable to serve as an expression of the goal of military action. The political goal is all the more decisive for the scale of the war, the more indifferent they are to the last mass and the less strained in other matters the relations between the two states.

In his book, Clausewitz analyzes the connection between war and politics. He believes that war in human society - the war of entire peoples, and, moreover, civilized peoples - always follows from a political situation and is caused only by political motives. War, in his opinion, is not only a political act, but also a true instrument of politics, the continuation of political relations, their implementation in other ways. What remains original in it refers only to the originality of its means.

Thus, taking into account the validity and universal recognition of the connection between war and politics and summing up the above, it seems possible to draw the following conclusion: if war is, in essence, a continuation of politics, its last argument, then there are no inevitable wars, just as there is no single true political lines.

II. Views on the war in historical perspective

1. Antiquity

The dream of peace accompanied man at all stages of civilization, starting from his very first steps. The ideal of a life without wars, when universally recognized norms of justice would be observed in international relations, goes back to ancient times. Already among ancient philosophers one can see the ideas of the world, however, this issue was considered only as a problem of relations between the Greek states. Ancient philosophers sought only to eliminate internecine wars. So, in terms of the ideal state proposed by Plato, there are no internal military clashes, but honors are given to those who distinguished themselves in the "second greatest kind of war" - in the war with external enemies. Aristotle's point of view on this topic is similar: the ancient Greeks saw foreigners as enemies and considered them and everything that belonged to them to be good booty, if only it could be captured. The reasons for this lie, it is believed, in the level economic development society. Hence a direct transition to the problem of slavery.

For the thinkers of this era, slavery was a natural and even progressive phenomenon. Aristotle, for example, considered it a socially necessary institution. The sources of slaves were prisoners of war, as well as freemen who fell into slavery for debts (although their situation was easier), and children born as slaves. And if so, then a foreign policy aimed at capturing more and more new territories and enslaving new millions of foreigners cannot be approved. Therefore, the vast majority of thinkers considered it legitimate to wage wars against other peoples, because war was the main source of slave power, without which the slave economy could not exist. Heraclitus, for example, argued that "war is the father and mother of everything; she determined some to be gods, others people; some she made slaves, others free." Aristotle wrote: "... if the weaving shuttles themselves weaved, and the plectrums themselves played the cithara (the absurdity of such an assumption is implied), then the architects would not need workers, and the masters would not need slaves."

2. Problems of the world and the Christian religion

If we look at the question of a world without wars from the point of view of christian church, one can see some duality here. On the one hand, the fundamental commandment "Thou shalt not kill" declared the most serious sin to take a person's life. The Church prevented the internecine wars of the Middle Ages, which was well reflected, for example, in the history of Rus'. So, the Kiev prince Vladimir Monomakh persuaded the Russian princes not to shed Christian blood in great post. Christianity was the initiator of the establishment of the so-called Peace of God (Pax Treuga Dei) - the days when internecine strife ceased. These days were associated with mythical events from the life of Christ, with the most important religious holidays, military operations were also not conducted on the days appointed by the church for reflection and prayer during Christmas Eve and fasting.

Violation of the Peace of God was punishable by fines, reaching the confiscation of property, excommunication from the church, and even corporal punishment. First of all, churches, monasteries, chapels, travelers, women, as well as items necessary for agriculture fell under the protection of the World of God.

At the same time, the preaching of universal peace did not prevent the Christian Church from consecrating numerous wars of conquest, crusades against the "infidels", and the suppression of peasant movements. Thus, criticism of the war at that time was limited to the ethical ideas of Christian doctrine, and the ideal of universal peace remained peace among the Christian peoples of Europe.

III. New approaches to the philosophical problem

war and peace

1. Age of Enlightenment

A new word about the world was said by young bourgeois humanism. His era was the time of the formation of capitalist relations. The process of the initial accumulation of capital with blood entered the history of not only Europe, but the entire planet. The expropriation of land and tools from the broad masses of the people, the colonial plunder and seizure in America and Africa created the conditions for the emergence and development of the capitalist mode of production. Nation-states were also created by force of arms. At the same time, the young bourgeoisie was to a certain extent also interested in maintaining peace, in putting an end to feudal strife, and in developing domestic and international trade. It created national markets, began to link all parts of the globe with economic ties into one world market.

In the center of attention of the advanced thinkers of this era was man, his liberation from the fetters of feudal dependence, from the oppression of the church and social injustice. The problem of comprehending the conditions for the harmonious development of the individual naturally led humanists to raise the question of eliminating the greatest evil from people's lives - war. A remarkable feature of the humanistic teachings of the Enlightenment was the condemnation of war as the greatest calamity for nations.

in my opinion is the first hallmark approach to the problem of the world at that time. The second thing that first appeared then was the establishment of a connection between politics and wars.

The ideologists of the Enlightenment raised the question of such a structure of society, the cornerstone of which would be political freedom and civil equality, opposed the entire feudal system with its system of class privileges. Outstanding representatives of the Enlightenment defended the possibility of establishing eternal peace, but they expected it not so much from the creation of a special political combination of states, but from the ever-increasing spiritual unity of the entire civilized world and the solidarity of economic interests.

French Enlightenment philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau in his treatise "Judgment on eternal peace"writes that wars, conquests and the strengthening of despotism are mutually connected and promote each other, that in a society divided into rich and poor, into dominant and oppressed, private interests, that is, the interests of those in power, contradict the general interests - the interests of the people. He connected the idea general peace with the armed overthrow of the power of the rulers, because they are not interested in maintaining peace.Similar to the views of another French educator Denis Diderot.Voltaire was afraid of the movement from the bottom and shifts in public life thought in the form of a revolution from above, carried out by the "enlightened" monarch in the interests of the nation .

The views of representatives of the German classical school of philosophy are interesting. I. Kant for the first time expressed a conjecture about the objective regularity leading to the establishment of eternal peace, about the inevitability of creating a union of peoples on a peaceful basis. Here the same thing happens as with individuals uniting in a state in order to prevent mutual extermination. The states will be compelled "to enter into an alliance of peoples, where each, even the smallest, state could expect its security and rights not from its own forces, but exclusively from such a great alliance of peoples." Kant considers the problems of relations between independent states in the treatise "Towards Eternal Peace".

Kant builds his treatise in the form of a treaty, parodying the corresponding diplomatic documents. First preliminary articles, then "final" articles, and even one "secret" one. The "final" articles of the Kantian project deal with securing the achieved peace. The civil system in every state must be republican. The second "final" article of the treaty on perpetual peace determines the basis on which international law arises, namely: the international union of states, where a device similar to civil society is realized, in which the rights of all its members are guaranteed. Union of peoples, "federalism of the free

states" is not a world state; Kant unequivocally advocates the preservation of national sovereignty. The third "final" article limits "world citizenship" only to the right to hospitality in a foreign country. Everyone should be able to visit any corner of the earth and not be subjected to attacks and hostile actions "Every nation has the right to the territory it occupies, it should not be threatened by enslavement by aliens. The Treaty of Perpetual Peace is crowned with a "secret" article: "... states armed for war must take into account the maxims of philosophers on the conditions of possibility common world.

Another representative of German classical philosophy, I. Herder, believes that an agreement concluded in conditions of hostile relations between states cannot serve as a reliable guarantee of peace. To achieve eternal peace, the moral re-education of people is necessary. Herder puts forward a number of principles by which people can be educated in the spirit of justice and humanity; among them is aversion to war, less reverence for military glory: “It is necessary to spread the conviction that the heroic spirit manifested in wars of conquest is a vampire on the body of mankind and does not at all deserve the glory and reverence that is given to him by tradition, coming from the Greeks, Romans and barbarians." In addition, Herder refers correctly interpreted purified patriotism, a sense of justice to other peoples, to such principles. At the same time, Herder does not appeal to governments, but appeals to the peoples, to the broad masses, who suffer most from the war. If the voice of the peoples sounds impressive enough, the rulers will be forced to listen to him and obey.

2. Modernity

In the further course of history, the problems of the world continued to occupy the minds of mankind; many prominent representatives of philosophy, scientists and culture are known to us for their views on these issues. Thus, Leo Tolstoy defended in his works the idea of "non-resistance to evil by violence." A. N. Radishchev rejected those provisions of the theory of natural law that recognized war as inevitable and justified the right to war. In his opinion, the organization of society on the basis of a democratic republic will forever save us from the greatest evil - war. A. I. Herzen wrote: "We are not happy with the war, we are disgusted with all kinds of murders - in bulk and in a breakdown ... War is an execution by a herd, this is a radical destruction."

The 20th century, which brought to mankind two world wars unprecedented in scale before, further exacerbated the significance of the problem of war and peace. During this period, the pacifist movement developed, which originated in the USA and Great Britain after the Napoleonic wars. It rejects all violence and any wars, including defensive ones. Some modern representatives of pacifism believe that wars will disappear when the population of the earth becomes stable; others are developing such activities to which the "warrior instinct" of a person could be switched. Such a "moral equivalent", in their opinion, can be the development of sports, especially competitions associated with the risk to life.

The well-known researcher J. Galtung tried to go beyond the narrow limits of pacifism; his concept is expressed in "minimization of violence and injustice in the world", then only the highest human values will be able to. Very interesting is the position of one of the most influential theorists of the Club of Rome - A. Peccei, who claims that the scientific and technical complex created by man "deprived him of orientation and balance, plunging the entire human system into chaos." He sees the main reason that undermines the foundations of the world in the flaws in the psychology and morality of the individual - greed, selfishness, inclination to evil, violence, etc. Therefore, the main role in the implementation of the humanistic reorientation of mankind, in his opinion, is played by "people changing their habits, morals, behavior." "The question comes down to how," he writes, "how to convince people in various parts of the world that it is in the improvement of their human qualities that the key to solving problems lies."

Conclusion

Thinkers of different epochs condemned wars, passionately dreamed of eternal peace and developed various aspects of the problem of universal peace. Some of them paid attention mainly to its ethical side. They believed that an aggressive war is a product of immorality, that peace can be achieved only as a result of the moral re-education of people in the spirit of mutual understanding, tolerance for different religions, the elimination of nationalist remnants, and the education of people in the spirit of the principle "all people are brothers."

Others saw the main evil caused by wars in economic ruin, in the disruption of the normal functioning of the entire economic structure. In this regard, they tried to persuade humanity towards peace, painting pictures of general prosperity in a society without wars, in which priority would be given to the development of science, technology, art, literature, and not to the improvement of the means of destruction. They believed that peace between states could be established as a result of a reasonable policy of an enlightened ruler.

Still others developed the legal aspects of the problem of peace, which they sought to achieve through an agreement between governments, the creation of regional or world federations of states.

The problem of peace, like the problem of war, attracts the attention of political and social movements, scientists of many countries. The successes of the peace-loving forces and all organizations are indisputable, as are the achievements of a number of schools and directions, scientific centers specializing in the study of peace problems. A vast amount of knowledge has been accumulated about peace as a goal, as a factor in the development and survival of mankind, about the complex dialectic of the relationship between war and peace and its features in the modern era, about possible ways and prerequisites for moving towards a world without weapons and wars.

Another important conclusion from the foregoing is just as obvious: the analysis of the concepts of the world requires serious efforts. A sufficiently deep and consistent philosophy of peace must be built, the most important component of which must be the dialectic of war and peace in their historical development. At the same time, the problem of the philosophy of the world should not be dissolved in narrowed dispassionate academicism, unnecessarily focused on the controversy around the definitions and relationships of individual concepts related to this branch of research activity. Turning to politics and ideology (as shown above, the connection between war and politics is inseparable), from my point of view, is not only permissible, but also necessary in this analysis - of course, not to the detriment of its scientific content.

The universal, global commensuration of the problems of war and peace gives special relevance to the cooperation of pacifists, believers and atheists, social democrats and conservatives, other parties, movements and trends. Pluralism of the philosophical interpretation of the world, ideological pluralism are inextricably linked with political pluralism. The various components of the peace movement are in complex relationships with each other - from ideological confrontation to fruitful dialogue and joint action. This movement reproduces a global task - the need to find optimal forms of cooperation between various social and political forces in order to achieve a common goal for the human community. Peace is a universal human value, and it can only be achieved through the joint efforts of all peoples.

Bibliography:

1. Bogomolov A. S. Ancient Philosophy. M. 1985.

2. Gulyga A. V. German classical philosophy. M. 1986.

3. Kapto A. S. Philosophy of the world. M. 1990.

4. Clausewitz K. About the war. M. 1990.

5. Treatises on eternal peace. M. 1963.

"War and Peace" is an extremely complex, multifaceted work: a historical, philosophical, family, psychological epic novel of modern times. The peculiarity of this epic novel lies in the fact that Tolstoy not only describes the history of Russia in the first quarter of the 19th century, talking about the Napoleonic Wars and the Patriotic War of 1812, but also tries to convey the spiritual, intellectual content of this era. The writer offers his philosophical understanding of both global - world and national - historical events, and life individual person. For Tolstoy, events from the history of a nation and the "trifles" of private life are equalized, since they equally manifest the general and eternal laws of being.

Tolstoy's philosophical reasoning about the patterns of history is scattered throughout the novel, but in the epilogue they are summarized once again. The author examines the most important questions about the driving forces of history and the role of the so-called "great people" in the historical process.

In "War and Peace" there are arguments about the goals of historical events and the role of human will in them: "Why there is a war or a revolution, we do not know; we only know that in order to perform this or that action, people form a certain combination and everyone participates, and we say that such is the nature of people, that this is a law ”(epilogue, 2, VII). Further, Tolstoy continues: “In real life, every historical event, every human action is understood very clearly, without feeling the slightest contradiction, despite the fact that each event appears partly free, partly necessary” (epilogue, 2, IX).

A historical event, according to the writer, is made up of the contradictory and diverse aspirations of millions of people living in the era of this historical event. Consequently, history does not depend on the will of one or several people, but on the will of all mankind, that is, it is an objective (non-conscious, “swarm”) process. You compare Tolstoy’s historical process with a clockwork: “Just as in a clock the result of the complex movement of countless different wheels and blocks is only the slow and even movement of the hand indicating the time, so is the result of all complex human movements ... - all passions, desires, remorse, humiliation, suffering, outbursts of pride, fear, the delight of people - there was only the loss of the battle of Austerlitz .., that is, the slow movement of the world-historical hand on the dial of the history of mankind" (1,3, XI). In the novel, in addition to theoretical considerations, artistic illustrations of historical laws are given, which, according to Tolstoy, govern people's lives. For example, the mass departure of Muscovites before the surrender of the city: “They left and did not think about the majestic significance of this huge, rich capital, abandoned by the inhabitants and given up as a sacrifice to fire (a large abandoned wooden city had to burn down); they left each for themselves, and at the same time, only because they left, that majestic event took place, which will forever remain the best glory of the Russian people ”(3, 3, V). In other words, the reasonable and correct action of an individual, according to Tolstoy, is the embodiment of the will of the whole (history), each act of the individual is determined by the will of mankind.

Human society, according to Tolstoy, can be depicted as a cone (epilogue, 2, VI), at the base of which is the people, and at the top is the ruler. The paradox of history appears to the author as follows: the higher a person stands on the social ladder, the less he can influence historical events: "The king is a slave of history." The proof of this idea is, for example, the election of Kutuzov to the post of commander in chief in the Patriotic War. Kutuzov was personally unpleasant to Alexander the First, but when a serious danger loomed over Russia, Kutuzov was called not by order of the authorities, but by the will of the people. The king, contrary to his personal desire, was forced to fulfill the will of the people. In other words, the people, according to Tolstoy, are the maker of history. That is why there are many heroes from the people in the novel - peasants, soldiers, courtyards. This is how the democratic convictions of the author are manifested.

The people are not only the main driving force of history, but also the main judge of the so-called "great people". A person who has earned the respect of the people will, according to Tolstoy, be great. Such a person does not make his own will in history, but perceives and fulfills the will of his people. Based on this position, the writer considers Kutuzov great (he understood the meaning and liberating nature of the Patriotic War) and denies greatness to Napoleon (this lover of power cared exclusively about personal glory, which he based on wars, on the blood of European peoples). Thus, Tolstoy's philosophical views are not only democratic, but also humanistic. The writer condemns the war, which coincides with the popular assessment of this event.

“War and Peace” also sets out the philosophical understanding of a separate human life, that is, Tolstoy poses “eternal” moral problems and gives answers to them, offering his own criteria for a correct life. The author describes the personal quests and interests of the characters, intertwines them with the quests, interests, clashes of peoples. If the hero correctly understands his place in history (Kutuzov, Prince Andrei, Pierre), then his personal spiritual development goes in the same direction as human history. If the hero wants to slow down or push the historical process with his will, then he looks naive and ridiculous. This is how the author characterizes the behavior of Count Rostopchin on the eve of the surrender of Moscow, listing the contradictory orders and actions of this statesman: “... this man did not understand the significance of the ongoing event, but only wanted to do something himself, surprise someone, accomplish something patriotically heroic and, like a boy, frolicked over the majestic and inevitable event of the abandonment and burning of Moscow and tried with his small hand either to encourage or to delay the course of the huge stream of people that carried him along with it ”(3, 3, V).

Inner freedom, according to the writer, is at least a partial rejection of the egoistic desire for personal good, because it obscures the common and undoubted good of life as such from a person. Tolstoy very simply formulates his understanding of morality: there is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth. The author applies these moral criteria to all the heroes of the novel, starting with emperors and generals and ending with simple Russian peasants. As a result, the heroes are divided into loved ones and unloved ones, depending on how much their behavior in life corresponds to the principles of simplicity, goodness and truth.

And in the time of Tolstoy, and still there is an opinion that a statesman can behave differently from a private person. What for a private person is considered a fraud, for a statesman - statesmanship; what in a public figure would be an unacceptable weakness, in a private person it is revered as humanity or gentleness of soul. Such a morality, therefore, allows for one and the same person two justices, two prudences. Tolstoy renounces double morality and proves that a historical figure and a simple person should be measured by the same standard, that simple justice is always the wisest and most profitable policy. For the author, the life and feelings of a private person against the backdrop of historical upheavals acquire the same importance as the lives and actions of historical figures.

Tolstoy gives his own assessment of all famous figures of the described historical era. This concerns, first of all, Napoleon, who, both in Russian and especially in European historiography, is presented as the greatest commander and statesman. But for Tolstoy, Napoleon is an aggressor who attacked Russia, giving orders to burn cities and villages, exterminate Russian people, rob and destroy cultural values. Alexander the First, the reformer Speransky, Count Rostopchin, German military strategists - all these historical figures are described by the author as empty and conceited people who only imagine that they are making history.

The author applies the same criteria of simplicity, goodness and truth to evaluate fictional characters. Drawing the court aristocracy (the Kuragin family, the maid of honor Anna Pavlovna Sherer, the careerists Drubetskoy, Berg, numerous adjutants), Tolstoy emphasizes their immorality, false patriotism. They live with empty interests, far from the true, according to the author, life. On the eve of the Battle of Borodino, when soldiers from the regiment of Prince Andrei are preparing to win or die, secular careerists “are busy only with their small interests. ... for them, this is just such a minute in which you can undermine the enemy and get an extra cross or ribbon ”(3, 2, XXV). The patriotism of secular society during World War II is manifested in the fact that the noble nobility does not go to the French theater and tries to speak Russian.

Tolstoy's favorite heroes embody his life ideal. Prince Andrei and Pierre, after long moral searches, come to the same conclusion: one must live for people, in truth and conscience. This, however, does not mean the rejection of a different opinion, from the intense mental work characteristic of both.

So, "War and Peace" reflects the author's philosophical views on the world and man. In the time of Tolstoy, history was usually presented as a chain of deeds of kings and generals, while the people did not play any role in the historical arena, their mission was to fulfill the will of “great people”. Such a view of history was clearly reflected in Russian and European battle painting: “... in the foreground, a huge general is sitting on a horse and waving some kind of drecole; then clouds of dust or smoke - you can't make out; then, behind the clubs, tiny soldiers, put on the picture only to show how great the commander is and how small the lower ranks are in comparison with him ”(D.I. Pisarev).

Tolstoy, reflecting on the historical process, analyzing the critical moments of Russian history, comes to the conclusion that the people are not two or three peanuts in the background of a battle picture, the people are the creator of history. So the writer abandoned one extreme point of view (history is the deeds of “great people”), but began to defend the other extreme (history is impersonal): “The actions of Napoleon and Alexander, on whose words it seemed that the event took place or not took place, were just as little arbitrary as the actions of each soldier who went on a campaign by lot or recruitment” (3, 1, I). It seems that the correct point of view is in the middle between the extremes - the whole nation creates history: the tsar, and generals, and senior and junior officers, and ordinary soldiers, and partisans, and civilians - in a word, all those who do at least something useful to the common cause, and even those who oppose the common cause. In other words, the historical process is carried out according to the well-known Latin proverb: fate leads the smart, but drags the stupid.

The philosophical concept in Tolstoy's novel is expressed not only in special digressions, not only in the images of Napoleon and Kutuzov, but also in each hero of the work, since each image in one way or another illustrates the ideas of the author's moral philosophy. Tolstoy, like all Russian writers of the middle of the 19th century, tried to solve the problem of a positive hero and looked for him among the nobility. In contemporary Russian life, the writer did not see such heroes, but, turning to history, he found positive images - these are the nobles of 1812 and 1825. They were ahead of their time, their moral character turned out to be closer to the advanced Russian people of the 60s of the 19th century than to their contemporaries of the first quarter of the 19th century.

Evaluating all the characters according to the same moral criteria (simplicity, goodness, truth), Tolstoy brings a universal (philosophical) meaning to the historical novel about the Patriotic War of 1812, which makes the work deeper in content and allows us to call it an epic. The moral ideal of the writer is, beyond any doubt, the people's ideal of moral life. The rejection of egoism, vanity, idleness, the desire to rise to universal human interests, to elevate one's feelings above the ordinary - this is what Tolstoy calls for in his moral teaching presented in War and Peace.

Content
Introduction 2

I. The concept of war. Communication of military and political goals 3

1. Clausewitz's philosophical doctrine of war. The inevitability of hostilities 3

II. Views on the war in historical perspective 6

1. Antiquity 6

2. Problems of the world and the Christian religion 7

III. New approaches to the philosophical problem of war and peace

1. Age of Enlightenment 9

2. Modernity 12

Conclusion 15

References 17

Introduction

During its centuries-old history, our country has been repeatedly raided by the Mongolian nation, more than once rebuffed the Swedish and Lithuanian invaders, it was our ancestors who were able to stop and completely destroy the German invaders. These disasters did not pass without a trace for us, millions of our compatriots gave their lives for the good of the Motherland. Therefore, we must pay tribute to the memory, the soldiers and those who, tirelessly, worked in the rear, waiting for their fathers, sons and husbands to go home. Each of us can say with confidence that the Great Patriotic War did not bypass his family.

This great tragedy has long remained in the hearts of all the people of the planet, and we must strive to ensure that such a disaster does not happen again. Therefore, great attention in philosophy is paid to the study of the causes of war. These problems were considered not only by our contemporaries, but also by the great scientists of antiquity. I will try to consider and analyze their views and approaches to solving these phenomena in my abstract.

I. The concept of war. Relationship between military and political goals
1. Clausewitz's philosophical doctrine of war.

The inevitability of hostilities
Very interesting, in my opinion, are the ideas put forward in the book "On War" by Carl von Clausewitz. Brought up under the influence of the German school of philosophy, and especially Hegel, he developed a theory about war and the influence of politics on it.

Consider his definition of war. The philosopher wrote: “If we want to embrace in thought as one whole all the countless martial arts that make up the war, then it is best to imagine a fight between two wrestlers. Each of them seeks, by means of physical violence, to force the other to do his will; his immediate aim is to crush the enemy and thereby render him incapable of any further resistance.”

In addition to single combat, Clausewitz is characterized by another comparison of war: “Combat in large and small transactions is the same as cash payment in bill transactions: no matter how distant this retribution, no matter how rarely the moment of realization comes, someday its hour will come” .

Indeed, one and the same political goal can have very different effects not only on different peoples, but also on the same people in different eras. Between two peoples, two states, relations can be so strained that a completely insignificant political pretext for war in itself will cause a tension that far exceeds the significance of this pretext, and will cause a genuine explosion.

II. Views on the war in historical perspective
1. Antiquity
The dream of peace accompanied man at all stages of civilization, starting from his very first steps. The ideal of a life without wars, when universally recognized norms of justice would be observed in international relations, dates back to ancient times. Already among ancient philosophers one can see the ideas of the world, however, this issue was considered only as a problem of relations between the Greek states. Ancient philosophers sought only to eliminate internecine wars. So, in terms of the ideal state proposed by Plato, there are no internal military clashes, but honors are given to those who distinguished themselves in the "second greatest kind of war" - in the war with external enemies. Aristotle's point of view on this topic is similar: the ancient Greeks saw foreigners as enemies and considered them and everything that belonged to them to be good booty, if only it could be captured. The reasons for this lie, as it is believed, in the level of economic development of society. Hence a direct transition to the problem of slavery.

For the thinkers of this era, slavery was a natural and even progressive phenomenon. Aristotle, for example, considered it a socially necessary institution. The sources of slaves were prisoners of war, as well as freemen who fell into slavery for debts (although their situation was easier), and children born as slaves. And if so, then a foreign policy aimed at capturing more and more new territories and enslaving new millions of foreigners cannot be approved. Therefore, the vast majority of thinkers considered it legitimate to wage wars against other peoples, because war was the main source of slave power, without which the slave economy could not exist. Heraclitus, for example, argued that “war is the father and mother of everything; some she determined to be gods, others people; some she made slaves, others free." Aristotle wrote: "... if the weaving shuttles themselves weaved, and the plectrums themselves played the cithara (the absurdity of such an assumption is implied), then the architects would not need workers, and the masters would not need slaves."

An analogous attitude towards slavery was also in the Roman Empire: the Romans called everything that was not Roman barbarian, and said: "For barbarians, chains or death." The call of the ancient Roman thinker Cicero “Let the weapon give way to the toga”, that is, let it be decided not by military force, but by civil power, was not actually applied to barbarians.
2. Problems of the world and the Christian religion
If you look at the question of a world without wars from the point of view of the Christian church, then you can see some duality here. On the one hand, the fundamental commandment “Thou shalt not kill” declared the deprivation of human life as the gravest sin. The Church prevented the internecine wars of the Middle Ages, which was well reflected, for example, in the history of Rus'. So, the Kiev prince Vladimir Monomakh persuaded the Russian princes not to shed Christian blood during Lent. Christianity was the initiator of the establishment of the so-called Peace of God (Treuga Dei) - the days when internecine strife ceased. These days were associated with mythical events from the life of Christ, with the most important religious holidays, military operations were also not conducted on the days appointed by the church for reflection and prayer during Christmas Eve and fasting.

III. New approaches to the philosophical problem of war and peace
1. Age of Enlightenment
A new word about the world was said by young bourgeois humanism. His era was the time of the formation of capitalist relations. The process of the initial accumulation of capital with blood entered the history of not only Europe, but the entire planet. The expropriation of land and tools from the broad masses of the people, the colonial plunder and seizure in America and Africa created the conditions for the emergence and development of the capitalist mode of production. Nation-states were also created by force of arms. At the same time, the young bourgeoisie was to a certain extent also interested in maintaining peace, in putting an end to feudal strife, and in developing domestic and international trade. It created national markets, began to link all parts of the globe with economic ties into one world market.

The birth of the idea of eternal peace was undoubtedly facilitated by the transformation of war into an ever greater threat to the peoples of Europe. The improvement of weapons, the creation of mass armies and military coalitions, the long-term wars that continued to tear apart European countries on an even larger scale than before, forced thinkers, almost for the first time, to think about the problem of relations between states and look for ways to normalize them, which, in my opinion , opinion, is the first distinguishing feature of the approach to the problem of the world at that time. The second thing that first appeared then was the establishment of a connection between politics and wars.

The French philosopher-enlightener Jean Jacques Rousseau writes in his treatise "The Judgment of Eternal Peace" that wars, conquests and the strengthening of despotism are mutually connected and promote each other, that in a society divided into rich and poor, into dominant and oppressed, private interests, then there are interests of those in power, contrary to common interests - the interests of the people. He linked the idea of universal peace with the armed overthrow of the power of the rulers, because they are not interested in maintaining peace. The views of another French educator Denis Diderot are similar. Voltaire, on the other hand, was afraid of the movement from below, and he thought of changes in public life in the form of a revolution from above, carried out by an "enlightened" monarch in the interests of the nation.

Kant builds his treatise in the form of a treaty, parodying the corresponding diplomatic documents. First preliminary articles, then "final" articles, and even one "secret" article. The "final" articles of the Kantian project deal with securing the achieved peace. The civil system in every state must be republican. The second "final" article of the treaty on perpetual peace defines the basis on which international law arises, namely: the international union of states, where a device similar to civil society is implemented, in which the rights of all its members are guaranteed. The union of peoples, the "federalism of free states" is not a world state; Kant unequivocally advocates the preservation of national sovereignty. The third "final" article limits "world citizenship" to the right to hospitality in a foreign country. Every person should be able to visit any corner of the earth and not be subjected to attacks and hostile actions. Every people has the right to the territory it occupies, it should not be threatened by enslavement by aliens. The treaty on perpetual peace is crowned with a "secret" article: "... states armed for war must take into account the maxims of philosophers on the conditions for the possibility of a common peace.

Hegel's theory sounds like a sharp dissonance here. Absolutizing the primacy of the universal over the individual, the genus over the individual, he believed that war carried out the historical sentence on entire peoples who were not connected with the absolute spirit. According to Hegel, war is the engine of historical progress, “war preserves the healthy morality of peoples in their indifference to certainties, to their familiarity and rooting, just as the movement of the wind protects lakes from rotting, which threatens them during a long calm, just as nations - a lasting or even more eternal peace.
2. Modernity
In the further course of history, the problems of the world continued to occupy the minds of mankind; many prominent representatives of philosophy, scientists and culture are known to us for their views on these issues. So, Leo Tolstoy defended in his works the idea of "non-resistance to evil by violence." A. N. Radishchev rejected those provisions of the theory of natural law that recognized war as inevitable and justified the right to war. In his opinion, the organization of society on the basis of a democratic republic will forever save us from the greatest evil - war. A. I. Herzen wrote: “We are not happy with the war, we are disgusted with all kinds of murders - wholesale and broken down ... War is an execution by a herd, this is a radical destruction.”

The well-known researcher J. Galtung tried to go beyond the narrow limits of pacifism; his concept is expressed in "minimization of violence and injustice in the world", then only the highest human values will be able to live. The position of one of the most influential theorists of the Club of Rome - A. Peccei, who claims that the scientific and technical complex created by man "deprived him of reference points and balance, plunged the entire human system into chaos" is very interesting. He sees the main reason that undermines the foundations of the world in the flaws in the psychology and morality of the individual - greed, selfishness, inclination to evil, violence, etc. Therefore, the main role in the implementation of the humanistic reorientation of mankind, in his opinion, is played by "people changing their habits, morals, behavior." “The question comes down to,” he writes, “how to convince people in various parts of the world that it is in the improvement of their human qualities that the key to solving problems lies”

Conclusion
Summing up, we can draw the following conclusion: thinkers of different eras condemned wars, passionately dreamed of eternal peace and developed various aspects of the problem of universal peace. Some of them paid attention mainly to its ethical side. They believed that an aggressive war is a product of immorality, that peace can only be achieved as a result of the moral re-education of people in the spirit of mutual understanding, tolerance for different religions, the elimination of nationalist vestiges, and the education of people in the spirit of the principle "all people are brothers."

Still others developed the legal aspects of the problem of peace, which they sought to achieve through an agreement between governments, the creation of regional or world federations of states.

Bibliography:

Bogomolov A.S. Antique Philosophy. M. 1985.

Gulyga A. V. German classical philosophy. M. 1986.

Kapto A.S. Philosophy of the world. M. 1990.

Clausewitz K. About the war. M. 1990.

Treatises on Eternal Peace. M. 1963.

3. Philosophy of WAR

As the history of mankind shows, war still remains its “eternal companion”, therefore, increased attention to military issues is a long-established tradition. The study of military issues is of great theoretical and practical importance in the interests of maintaining peace, creating conditions for the progressive development of peoples, and ensuring national security. Mastering military-philosophical knowledge about the sources, causes, reasons, pretexts of wars, their essence, the specifics of manifestation in the economic, political, social and spiritual spheres of society, the basics of the socio-philosophical analysis of military problems, classifications of wars is an indispensable element of humanitarian education and upbringing modern man. Possession of information about modern concepts of wars in the domestic military-philosophical tradition and in polemology - the science of war in foreign military thought, is a necessary component of the general human and military-special culture of a specialist.

Military problems have gained particular importance in recent decades in connection with the creation of nuclear missile weapons and other means of mass destruction, comparable in terms of damaging factors with nuclear military technologies. A citizen is obliged to deeply realize, understand the ongoing military-political processes in the world and in his state, for the security of which he is responsible.

3.1. The development of military-philosophical views on the causes of war

Initially, military-philosophical thought was formed in the simplest forms, inextricably linked with mythological, religious systems, as a rule, wars were associated with the will of the gods. So, in the poetry of Hesiod it is said that war and peace are in the hands of the gods of the Olympians. According to Hesiod, the origin of fierce wars and enmity is associated with Eris, the goddess of discord. Mythology is one of the most important pre-philosophical sources for the formation of views on the origin of wars. In the classical period of antiquity, thinkers focused on identifying the sources and causes of war. This trend is associated with the development at that time of the doctrine of universal causal relationships. The atomist philosopher Democritus (460-370 BC) was convinced that war is inherent in human society and is determined by economic and socio-political reasons, property inequality. Given the lawlessness in the state, warriors and uprisings break out quite often. Sophists - Protagoras, Gorgias, Hippias argued that war is inherent in society, because a person is by nature prone to violence. War is generated by the laws of society, which are contrary to nature. The main causes of war are the lust for power, the desire for glory, revenge on offenders, help to allies. Socrates (470-399 BC), in turn, saw the causes of the war in the imperfection of the human race, the delusions of people, their lack of a proper idea of good and evil, the indestructibility of evil, violation of the law in the state at the will of private individuals. Plato (427-347 BC) expressed contradictory opinions on the problem of the sources of wars. The philosopher at the same time argued that there was a time without wars, and that wars are rooted in human nature and therefore there is an eternal and irreconcilable war between states. The nature of war is rooted in the depravity of human nature, the dominance of a violent spirit. The works of Aristotle (384-322 BC) contain the most complete characterization of the causes of wars, strife, and coup d'état in ancient times. Along with inequality, the qualities of the soul, Aristotle saw the causes of wars in the diversity of the population, until it is smoothed out. Clarifying the economic causes of wars, the philosopher writes that they are in private property, poverty, greed, striving for excess, wealth. As the socio-political causes of wars, Aristotle calls the absence political rights among citizens, the enslavement of the majority of people, the ambition of the oligarchs, the unbridled demagogues, the inclination towards autocracy, the desire for dominance over neighbors living under different laws. Ancient thinkers did not create an integral concept, a developed system of knowledge about war, but managed to lay the theoretical foundation for the doctrine of the causes and sources of war. In a generalized form, they look like this: cosmological - fate, fate; religious and mystical - the will of the gods; psychological - the aggressiveness of a person; moral and ethical - revenge for an insult; legal - violations of law, order; naturalistic - the natural predisposition of peoples; socio-political - injustice, vicious politics, state contradictions, assistance to allies, etc.; cosmopolitan - many states; material - property, money, lack of land, etc.

In the Middle Ages, due to the dominance religious views, there was no significant increase in knowledge about the war. Religious dogmas underlay the analysis of military issues. The most prominent religious thinkers of the Middle Ages who spoke out on military issues are St. Augustine (354-430) and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), who reduced everything to providence and substantiated the Christian concept of war and peace. They saw the war as a struggle between the followers of God, building the city of God, and the followers of Satan, building the city of the earth. In the heretical teachings of individual medieval thinkers, there are attempts to reveal the earthly causes of specific wars waged with the aim of seizing land, robbery, and also by the evil will of people. In general, medieval military views were characterized by mysticism, religiosity, an example of which is the Islamic concept of "holy war".

In the Renaissance, the process of overcoming church-theological views on the origin of war began. A search was made for the roots of social phenomena, first of all, in reality itself. N. Machiavelli (1469-1527) was a highly educated person for his time, he knew well the military-philosophical works of his predecessors. He considered the political struggle to be the driving force of social development and allowed any means in the process of its conduct, including violence, betrayal, deceit. In the writings of the Dutch thinker Grotius (1583-1645), it is noted that war arises from the nature of man and the state he created. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) argued that fear creates states. In the natural state, man is a wolf to man; the fear of mutual extermination makes people conclude a social contract. The reasons that give rise to wars between states are, according to T. Hobbes, in rivalry, the desire to seize other people's wealth, distrust, which requires a preemptive attack in the interests of security, considerations of honor and love of glory. The French educators Voltaire (1694-1778), Ch. Montesquieu (1689-1775), J. J. Rousseau (1712-1778) deepened and expanded knowledge about the causes of wars. Enlighteners saw the causes of the war in ignorance and delusion, religious fanaticism, the vices of feudal society, despotism, and private property. In the extensive philosophical heritage of G. Hegel (1770-1831), regarding the causes of war, it is indicated that they are carried out for conquests with the aim of robbery, in the interests of resolving conflicts that cannot be resolved by other methods. According to the German thinker, wars do not happen, they are caused by the nature of things. They are not waged against privacy, individuals. A significant contribution to the study of the causes of wars was made by K. Marx and F. Engels. The founders of Marxism developed an integrated, comprehensive approach to war based on consistent materialism using materialist dialectics as theory and method. scientific knowledge. A feature of their approach to the study of the war is an open partisanship, an analysis of military issues in the interests of the working class. K. Marx and F. Engels linked the origin and sources of war with private property relations, with the split of society into antagonistic classes, with the formation of states pursuing an unjust policy both within society and in the sphere of interstate relations. Violence is only a means. The goal is economic, political and other benefits.

The cultural understanding of the causes of the war is presented in the works of N. Roerich (1874-1947), who saw the roots of all murders and conflicts in base and evil atavisms of human consciousness. Anger, distrust, enmity dictate strife. The main reason for the war is cruelty, ignorance. Ignorance needs to be eradicated, because it is incapable of creation. Cruelty is ignorance in action. The cause of ignorance is the lack of beauty, lack of culture, ignorance, rudeness and foul language. Thus, the war appeared as a result of the social differentiation of society and the formation of states as one of the violent methods of resolving the contradictions that arose between them. Prior to this, armed clashes between clans and tribes were not of a political nature, they were a kind of struggle for survival. The reasons for such clashes were the desire to expand pastures, hunting grounds, blood feuds, differences in religious beliefs, and others.

The underlying causes of war lie in the conflict-contradictory nature of the mode of production and social relations in general, the system of social and national oppression, which give rise to armed violence of some states, peoples, nations, classes, social groups over others, therefore the history of human civilization largely acts as the history of wars, with the help of which society tried to resolve the main economic and political contradictions. Simultaneously with the general ones, special (specific) causes of wars also operate, reflecting a specific historical epoch, a period of social development, and the content of maturing social contradictions. Thus, the causes of World War I were the uneven economic and political development of large industrial states, the aggravation of state contradictions, and the struggle for the redivision of the world. General and special causes of the outbreak of war act together with individual (private) ones and are concretized in them. If the general and special causes are closely related to the objective conditions for the outbreak of wars, then the individual ones are related to the subjective factor, i.e. activities of individual socio-political forces interested in the war. It is wrong to confuse the causes of war with reasons and pretexts. For example, the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo was the reason for the start of the 1st World War, but was not its cause.

For the scientific characterization of war, it is necessary to analyze the action of not only general, special and individual causes, objective conditions and subjective factors of their occurrence, but also social, political, economic and other phenomena of reality that block the manifestation of war and counteract them. The modern military doctrine of the Russian Federation (2000) states that it supports the readiness to wage wars and armed conflicts solely for the purpose of preventing, repelling and suppressing aggression, protecting independence, state and territorial integrity, and ensuring the military security of the Russian Federation and its allies.

Wars and armed conflicts are studied in foreign political science within the framework of polemology - the science of war. Guided by the principle “if you want peace, comprehend war,” polemologists G. Butulya (France), B. Relling (Holland), F. Fornari (Italy), W. Werner (Belgium), focus on a comprehensive interdisciplinary study of wars, conflicts and other forms of collective aggressiveness with the involvement of methods and elements of sociology, demography, biology, mathematics and other sciences. The research is based on a positivist methodology that combines elements of the economic, political and cultural explanation of wars.

In the mosaic of Western concepts that explain the causes of modern wars, several groups can be distinguished: technical, natural (geopolitical, psychological, social Darwinist, anthropological), theological, sociocultural. Technist theories substantiate the sources of modern wars as the offspring of science and technology that get out of control of people, turning into a demonic force that threatens the future of mankind. The concepts of natural determinism of the causes of wars are being developed in the West by McDougall, J. Blainini, and J. Dollard. Developers of geopolitical theories see the causes of wars in the lack of territories, the lack of the necessary security of natural borders and their length. Psychological theories proceed from the fact that the causes of wars are rooted in "eternal instincts", "original psychological cycle", in the thirst for violence, the desire for aggression, destruction, destructiveness. Supporters of psychological views see the sources of war in the human psyche, which, due to inadequate perception of reality, serves as the basis for aggressive human behavior. The main cause of militancy is rooted in envy. Social Darwinist theories proceed from the fact that the whole world is a "zone of struggle for survival." Racists assert the presence of natural aggressiveness not only in individuals, but also in entire nations prone to unleashing wars. Neo-Malthusians connect the sources of wars with the "population explosion", overpopulation of the earth. Anthropological theories are the most widespread at present. Despite some differences and shades in the approach to this phenomenon, their theoretical and methodological basis is the biopsychological interpretation of war and armed violence as manifestations of a genetically determined instinct. We are talking about the fact that the behavioral models of the animal world are similar to the behavioral models of humans. The social behavior of a person is based on innate stimulants of the biological nature of the person himself. As a "logical" conclusion from this follows the statement about the natural inevitability and irremovability of wars and other violent actions from the life of society, about the futility of people's conscious efforts to prevent and avoid military conflicts, about the deliberate doom of all their aspirations to ensure a peaceful life. Representatives of religious views in their theories explain the causes of wars by “mysterious” forces human nature, the origins of which are in the sphere of "transcendent". War is rooted in those depths of human existence that man cannot understand. Adherents of the sociocultural ideas of the origin of wars argue that they are generated by insufficient communication skills of people, weak or distorted information, the negative impact of the media on humanity, and contradictions between generations of people.

In recent years, in polemology, along with the existence of vulgar biosocial and psychosocial concepts, the importance of scientific theories explaining the causes of conflicts both within the state and between them. Structural causes include economic, demographic, conjuncture - political, and random sources of wars are singled out separately. Polemologists, seeking to comprehend war, are looking for ways and forms to ensure peace and security in the international arena. The research methodology they use is being improved, abstract views on war are being eliminated, and the realities of the modern era are being taken into account more and more.

3.2. Essence of war

War is a complex social phenomenon that acts as a continuation of the domestic and foreign policy of the belligerents by means of armed violence. “So, we see,” K. Clausewitz wrote, “that war is not only a political act, but also a true instrument of politics, the continuation of political relations, their implementation by other means. What still remains original in it refers only to the originality of its means... never think of a means without an end.” (About the war. M., 1941. T. 1. S. 43). Politics is the main element of the essence of war, because. it gives rise to war as a means of resolving social contradictions; determines the decisive impact on society in order to create and use the necessary military power; ensures the achievement of the set goals not only with the help of armed violence, but also with other types of struggle in war (economic, scientific and technical, diplomatic, ideological); determines the character and direction of the post-war world. Another specific side of the essence of war is armed struggle, which has the ability to influence politics in the opposite direction. Thus, the course of an armed struggle may force us to reconsider not only the political goals of the war, but also the entire domestic and foreign policy of the belligerent side(s). There are cases in history when the outcome of an armed struggle in a war changed the entire political system of society, its spiritual life, economy, and so on. Both sides of the essence of war are in dialectical interaction, and a change in one of them, as a rule, entails a change in the other, which is reflected in the laws of war. The emergence of nuclear missile weapons of mass destruction and other types of weapons of mass destruction radically changed not only the nature of the armed struggle, but also its political content, making the war as a whole irrational. The socio-political and military-strategic nature of the war are two interrelated aspects of the war, reflecting its content and connection with the essence. The socio-political nature of the war reveals its diverse connections with all spheres and areas of public life (political, social, economic, spiritual, legal, moral, etc.). Analyzing the socio-political nature of a particular war, it is necessary to determine from a moral and political point of view its just or unjust character, from the point of view of recognized international law - legal or illegal, from the point of view of social historical development- Progressive or reactionary.

An analysis of the military-strategic nature of a war requires determining its military-strategic goals, the means of destruction and military equipment used by the belligerents, the types and scales of military operations, the methods of their conduct, physical and geographical conditions, and so on.

War acts as a way to resolve socio-economic, political, spiritual and ideological contradictions by armed, pronounced violent means, which are based on the large-scale use of weapons and military technologies. War has territorial and temporal boundaries, determined by the place, the beginning of its conduct and the cessation of armed struggle. War is a complex planned, predictable, organized and organized process, the development of which is subject to the action of a system of laws of general sociological and specific levels. The war has a historical framework, because. it arose during the period of the emergence of private property, politics, the state, social groups that differ in their economic, social, political and cultural position. The prospects for eliminating wars from social relations are associated with the disappearance of the causes that give rise to them, or with the development of reliable systems of means to prevent them. War is characterized by a complex interaction of conscious, unconscious and irrational principles; the interweaving of social, personal, ideological, psychological, religious, socio-cultural components of the spiritual life of society and the individual. War develops as a probabilistic system, most adequately reflected by synergetics, difficult to accurately calculate, predict, and control. War acts as a meeting point for all forms of matter movement: mechanical, physical, chemical, biological, mental, social, informational, geological, noospheric and others.

War causes the transfer of society to a military state, which is characterized by the dominant role of military means of pursuing policy, subordinating non-violent means to them. War requires an uncompromising struggle, a reorientation of the main direction of aggregate social activity, a brutal subordination of the main spheres of society to the goals and tasks of armed struggle, a change in the basic elements of society, a different depth and scale of restructuring the economic sphere, and its transfer to the maximum provision of military needs. The war presupposes significant transformations in the social sphere, characterized by increased dynamics of the social structure, a decline in the living standards of the population, a change in everyday life, and the demographic situation. War requires profound changes in the political sphere, the mobilization of public consciousness, ideology, social psychology in the interests of successful warfare.

3.3. Patterns of the development of war

In the process of development and change of socio-economic formations, civilizations, interconnected patterns are clearly manifested in the historical genesis of war as a special state of society. We are talking about the ever-increasing influence of the war on the main spheres of public life and society as a whole and the increased dependence of the course and outcome of the war on the state of the social organism and its individual elements. The first pattern is manifested in the increase in the scale, duration, intensity of combat operations, the growth in the size of armies, equipping them with an increasing number of weapons and military equipment of great destructive power. All this leads to an increase in material costs for the preparation and conduct of war, the restructuring of the economy to support combat operations and the creation of a military industry, the diversion of an increasing number of able-bodied population from direct productive labor, the creation of special state bodies to direct the war and its ideological support. At the same time, in the process of historical development, there is an increase in human and material losses during hostilities, an increasingly destructive effect of armed struggle on the main spheres of society. Ultimately, this leads to the involvement of the entire society in the war, a gigantic exertion of its forces in order to achieve victory. The second pattern finds its direct reflection in the action of the totality of the laws of war, traditionally divided into three groups. The first group is represented by the basic law of war, which determines its occurrence, course, and completion. This law reflects the dominant role of the social content of the war and the correlation of potentials (economic, political, spiritual, etc.) of the warring parties on the nature, development and outcome of the war. The factors determining the process of war are political goals, legal foundations, compliance with the laws of social development of the direction of the war, and the presence of military potential. The second group of laws of war reflects the objective, natural connections between the course and outcome of the war. These laws show the dependence of the development of war and its results on the correlation of economic, political, social, moral, religious, scientific, technical and military forces proper participating in the armed clash of the parties. The third group of laws of war expresses the connections-relations that arise directly in the process of a battle, operation, battle. This is, first of all, the dependence of the armed phase of the war on military-political goals, the ratio of combat potentials, forces, means, strategy, operational art, tactics, goals and objectives, unity and consistency of the military-political goals of the parties and spatio-temporal parameters of actions, the expediency of concentrating the main forces and means on the decisive direction of military efforts.

3.4. Classification of wars

The classification of wars is the selection of the most significant features used as grounds. One of the first to classify wars was the ancient Chinese thinker W. Zi (5-4 centuries BC). He used the purpose of the war as the basis for the classification and substantiated a variant of the classification, including just, violent, cruel and rebellious wars. From the position of the current level of military-philosophical knowledge, the limitations of this approach are visible. Its value lies in the development of a classification methodology, which subsequently made it possible to deepen and expand the systematization of wars on a number of grounds. In the "Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language" V.I. Dahl presented his version of the classification of wars: offensive, when they lead an army to a foreign state; defensive, when they meet this army to protect their own; internecine, strife, when one and the same people, divided in turmoil, are at enmity with weapons; land - the battle on the mainland; sea - battle at sea; underground - tunnels of various kinds, during a siege from one side and the other; small, outpost service, occupations and duties of the guard unit of the army; partisan - the actions of individual small parts of the troops from the wings and rear of the enemy, to cut off his means of communication and delivery; popular, in which the whole people takes a lively part in sympathy for the contention; ink - a squabble in writing. In the above classification of wars, V.I.Dal reflected the level of development of the military-theoretical thought of his time. Based on the classification of wars made by the writer, lexicographers, ethnographer, doctor by education V.I. Dalem, was also reflected in the fact that he was not a military theorist.

N.A. Berdyaev (1874-1948) outlined his vision of the classification of wars in the letter “On War”, in which he writes about the wars of powerful peoples with weak, uncultured peoples, wars for national liberation, civil wars, barbarian and predatory wars.

In Marxism, a tradition has developed to classify wars on socio-political grounds and to single out genera, types and types. Moreover, only moral content (the division of wars into fair and unfair) was invested in the concept of “genus”, based on class premises. Unjust wars were those unleashed, as a rule, by reactionary forces with the aim of suppressing the revolutionary or liberation struggle of classes and nations, seizing foreign territories, enslaving and plundering other peoples, etc. Under certain conditions, just wars developed into unjust ones and vice versa. Thus, the wars waged by France at the end of the 18th century, defending itself from the counter-revolutionary coalition of monarchist states (1792-1793), were just on its part. However, after the conservative wing of the bourgeoisie came to power in France, these wars turned into unfair ones. were conducted with the aim of capturing and robbing other peoples.

According to the domestic military thinker A.A. Kersnovsky (1907-1944) - the author of "The History of the Russian Army" in assessing the justice of the war, the main criterion is the benefit for the state and the nation. All wars are divided into 3 levels: 1. Wars waged in defense of great spiritual values - just wars; 2. Wars waged in the name of the interests of the state and the nation. In this case, a special measure must be applied to each war; 3. Wars that do not meet the interests of the state and nation. These are selfless adventures.

The Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation (2000) states that the nature of modern wars is determined by their military-political goals, the means of achieving these goals, and the scale of military operations. In accordance with this, a modern war can be: in terms of military-political goals - fair (for the side that has been subjected to aggression), unfair (for the side that has undertaken aggression); according to the means used - nuclear (using nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction), conventional (using only conventional means of destruction); scale - local, regional, global.

In the Marxist classification, only political content is embedded in the concept of “type” of war. The type of war reflects the nature of the relations and contradictions underlying the armed clash of the parties. For example, a civil war is a way to resolve acute class, national, religious and other contradictions between various socio-political forces within the country. Thus, the type of war reflects an integral two-way process of struggle in war. Types of war are often intertwined with each other and rarely appear in a "pure" form. Therefore, the characterization of the war is essentially complemented by their classification by type, which is understood as the allocation of the socio-political assessment of each of the belligerents. So, if one side is waging a colonial war, then the other is waging a national liberation war. In the history of wars, there is a lot of "interlacing" of various types, types and types of wars. Therefore, for a more complete characterization of their content, along with socio-political grounds, there are military-technical grounds for classification: according to the means of armed struggle and military equipment used; by types and methods of military operations (positional and maneuver wars, defensive and offensive wars), etc.

Quantitative-scale bases are also used to classify wars: local, regional, large-scale and world wars, coalition and non-coalition, long-term and short-term, and others.

A local war is understood as a war between two or more states, limited by political goals, in which military operations are conducted, as a rule, within the borders of opposing states and mainly the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political, and others) are affected.

A local war can be waged by groupings of troops (forces) deployed in the area of conflict, with their possible strengthening due to the transfer of additional forces and means from other directions and the partial deployment of armed forces.

Under certain conditions, local wars can develop into a regional or large-scale war.

The concept of "regional war" includes the concept of a war involving two or more states (groups of states) of a region by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons on a territory limited by the boundaries of one region with adjacent oceans and seas. , air and outer space, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals.

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

Modern Russian military planning, based on a realistic understanding of the current resources and capabilities of the Russian Federation, proceeds from the fact that the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, together with other troops, must be ready to repel an attack and defeat an aggressor, to conduct active operations (both defensive and offensive) in any variant of unleashing and waging wars and armed conflicts in conditions of massive use by the enemy of modern and advanced combat weapons, including weapons of mass destruction of all varieties.

In the military-philosophical literature, the term "armed conflict" is often encountered. In an armed conflict, the parties, as a rule, pursue private military-political goals. An armed conflict may result from the escalation of an armed incident, a border conflict, an armed action and other limited-scale armed clashes, during which the means of armed struggle are used to resolve contradictions.

An armed conflict may be of an international character (with the participation of two or more states) or an internal character (with the conduct of armed confrontation within one state).

The nature of a military conflict should be understood as a combination of socio-political and military indicators proper. Socio-political indicators include the participants in the conflict, its causes, goals and justice. The military indicators of the conflict traditionally include strategic goals and objectives, forces and means, methods and forms of conducting military operations, areas of concentration of the main efforts, the scale, intensity of the military struggle and the consequences of the conflict. As experience shows, socio-political factors play a leading role in shaping the strategic image of a military conflict and its character as a whole.

The nature of modern military conflicts is determined by the influence of two conflicting trends. The first trend is the desire of most states to create a comprehensive system of international security under the auspices of the UN, which would prevent or at least significantly reduce the negative consequences of military conflicts between certain states under the control of the UN, achieve their political goals.

Military conflicts in Korea, the Persian Gulf, Yugoslavia revealed a number of common features: limited targets aimed at forcing one of the conflicting parties to peace, the formation of a coalition under the auspices of the UN to achieve this goal, the appearance of the created coalition on the side of one of the participants in the conflict and forcing the world of the more aggressive side.

The second trend that determines the nature of modern military conflicts, concerning the state first of all of the European, and then of the world security system, is connected with the process of NATO expansion, the increase in aggressive, hegemonic aspirations of the United States.

NATO's relations with Russia are slowly moving towards a confrontation that is fraught with serious losses for the international security of individual states, including Russia.

The development of this trend is due to the obvious incomparability of the capabilities of Russia and NATO, the United States, which does not interfere with the construction of parity relations, and the role of a junior partner does not suit Russia.

The United States and NATO actively oppose Russia in the matter of integrating it with the former republics of the USSR. NATO has significantly advanced military forces to the borders of Russia, the depth of the NATO zone has increased to 750 km to the east. The combat composition of the NATO ground forces is increasing by 20%, the air force - by 10-15%. NATO naval forces in the Baltic increase by 20%. Military groupings are building up near the borders of the Russian Federation. The increase in NATO's combat potential calls into question the effectiveness of the OSCE Treaty. Further strengthening of this trend may lead to a new alienation between Russia and the West and the revival of the former antagonistic confrontation, currently on a geopolitical basis.

An analysis of contemporary military-political relations in the world shows that neither the peacekeeping nor the aggressive trend has acquired an irreversible character. The evolution of interstate wars in the form of total towards supranational operations under the patronage of regional or international forces to maintain or restore peace is becoming more and more evident.

When classifying wars, it is necessary to take into account the specific historical epoch, which determines their originality and determines the main features. Since the content of the war, the methods of its conduct depend on the nature of production, the level of development of the productive forces, science and technology, the socio-political system, the spiritual state of society and other conditions.

A significant place in the Western philosophy of war is occupied by the problem of typification of wars. It is based on the theses of biologization, psychologization of wars, absolutization of space-time, geographical factors, identification of wars with any conflict taking place in human society and the animal world. So, for example, the American sociologist K. Wright in his book "The Study of Wars" distinguishes four types of wars in accordance with such criteria: between animals; between "primitive peoples"; between civilized peoples with a written culture; between states using modern technology. Another American military theorist, M. Midlarsky, in his book "On War", using the spatio-temporal factor, divides wars into: territorially limited and short in time; long-term, regional with a large number of participants; prolonged violent wars aimed at changing the policy of the opposing state; "normal wars" leading to "fundamental changes" in the system of political power. W. Rostow distinguishes three types of wars: 1. Colonial; 2. Regional - aggression associated with the formation of new nations; 3. Mass - the wars of our century because of the desire to achieve (or prevent) a decisive predominance in the Eurasian balance of power, which would be tantamount to world domination. This version of the classification of wars is incomplete and contains dubious definitions of the causes of war. Thus, the author connects regional aggression only with the process of formation of new nations, ignoring local wars between developed nations and states. The term “mass war”, which W. Rostow uses to designate a world war, is also not indisputable. Wars of this type are distinguished not only by the huge mass of opposing troops, but also by their global nature, the significant size of the theater of operations, and the involvement of the leading states of the world. The above classification does not reflect the social nature of certain wars either. The prominent American theorist M.Taylor in his work "Unreliable Strategy" divides wars into total, conventional and subversive. A feature of Western approaches to the typification of wars is ignoring the socio-political, class criteria of war. Thus, in the US strategy of "direct confrontation" wars are divided into nuclear and conventional, general and "limited", "protracted".

The factors of war are transformed into its essence, a fundamental stable quality at the level of species and subspecies. The dominance of one of the two qualities inherent in man - individualism or collectivism - caused by historical necessity, also forms two models of social development: collectivist and individualist. The first is clearly manifested in the Afro-Asian countries, the second - in European and North American. Each of the models has its own religion, ideology, culture, way of life. It can hardly be argued that one of the models is better - each has the right to life, they complement each other. However, complete harmony between them cannot exist. The contradictions between civilizations are too strong, flowing not only along the line of "rich North - poor South", but also based on different systems of values. This is what the American political scientist S. Huntington wrote about, predicting the inevitability of a clash of civilizations. And if in the 1950s and 1960s these contradictions resulted in a powerful wave of the anti-colonial movement and a series of national liberation wars, then it is quite likely that in the foreseeable future they can serve as a breeding ground for intercivilizational wars and military conflicts.

Along with this, intra-civilizational differences and contradictions cannot be neglected. Within each of these development models, there is a very wide range of economic, political, social-class, national-ethnic, religious and other differences that cannot but lead to tensions and conflicts. Therefore, Z. Brzezinski, giving a generalized description of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, united them with an "arc of instability." So, if we approach the problem of the typology of modern wars from the position of classifying them on a social basis, then it is legitimate to single out two types: inter-civilizational and intra-civilizational. Thinking about the possibility of inter-civilizational wars in modern conditions, it is necessary to keep in mind that they are hardly possible. The fact is that the countries belonging to the individualistic model are largely consolidated, have stable economic, political and military positions and there is no particular benefit for them to unleash a new world war. In most countries that cultivate a collectivist model and an authoritarian-democratic form of government, the political elite has a pro-Western orientation and prefers to increase their well-being not through confrontation, but through cooperation with developed countries.

This does not mean at all that contradictions between civilizations cannot serve as a detonator for a large-scale regional war, especially in the zone of direct contact between civilizations (the Middle East, South Africa, etc.).

When classifying wars, as a rule, they also use such a sign as the types of weapons used. Here, wars with the use of nuclear weapons and wars with the use of conventional weapons are distinguished. It seems that such a division of wars is currently losing its relevance. The fact is that in recent decades, the conclusion that a nuclear war will bury humanity has been worked out enough. For all the productivity of this conclusion in terms of a wiser attitude on the part of politicians and governments to this problem, it is not indisputable. Apocalyptic moods, in all likelihood, exist in the mind of a person from the moment of his appearance. Any new, more destructive weapon was almost immediately declared absolute. Artificial epidemics, firearms, rapid-fire weapons, dynamite, gases, etc. at one time they were considered the limit that would not allow war. Nevertheless, anti-weapons, means of protection were found quite quickly: poisons - antidote, gases - gas masks, missiles - anti-missiles, etc. It is likely to assume that the time is near when its own "anti" will be developed for nuclear weapons as well.

It must be taken into account that the destructive possibilities and consequences of the use of so-called conventional weapons have come close to nuclear weapons. Even at the end of World War II, massive bombardments wiped out cities with a million inhabitants, and hundreds of thousands of people were burned in a fire tornado. Over the past decades, the power of conventional weapons has multiplied many times over. And if we consider that its massive use in densely populated areas stuffed with chemical industries, nuclear power plants, gas and oil pipelines, etc. will lead to significant human casualties from direct and secondary actions, then it is legitimate to assume that the consequences of such a war will not differ much from the consequences of a nuclear war. Therefore, it seems more justified to divide wars into wars with the massive use of weapons and wars with the limited use of weapons. At the same time, restrictions may relate to the types of weapons used, the density of strikes, the nature of the objects on which these strikes are delivered.

Since ancient times, people have tried to give a moral assessment of the war. Plato and Cicero, Augustine and N.Machiavelli, V.S.Soloviev and V.I.Lenin wrote about just and unjust wars. And now this issue is very actively discussed in scientific and popular literature. In the near future, hardly anyone will dispute K. Clausewitz's position that war is the continuation of politics by violent means, i.e. war is politics squared. But can politics be moral, are the categories of morality applicable to it? After all, what is moral from the standpoint of one social system, stratum, is immoral from the standpoint of another. And, apparently, Winston Churchill was right when he very succinctly described politics in one word - this is dirt, dirt, dirt. But if it is difficult to operate with moral categories in assessing domestic policy, then it is even more difficult to apply them to the system of international relations. After all, there are not only the interests of various social groups, but also state, civilizational differences, which are considered by each subject of relations from the standpoint of their own morality. Therefore, it is not surprising that during the course of the war, each side considers itself right. So, if the war of 1812. from the standpoint of the Russian people was fair, Patriotic, then the French also considered it fair, because they believed that they were bringing liberation to the Russians from the oppression of tsarism and serfdom. In the same way, not without the participation of the people, the war of 1914. was declared Patriotic, fair, although for the Bolsheviks it was considered imperialistic. It is not surprising that they were the only party that sought the defeat of their own country, and this was considered quite moral. Based on this, it seems more appropriate to avoid attempts to divide wars on a moral basis into just and unjust. A soldier always fights for the Fatherland, even far from his homeland. Moralizing for him can end very badly, both in the moral and in the legal sense.

When evaluating wars, one should to a greater extent operate with the categories of international law, in particular, the definition of aggression set forth in the UN Charter. “Aggression is the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state,” it notes, “no considerations can justify aggression, a war of aggression is a crime against international peace". In other words, wars can be aggressive, aimed at seizing another state or its territory, infringing on sovereignty and territorial integrity, and defensive wars, in defense of the Fatherland.

3.5. Modern concepts of war

A significant part of domestic researchers involved in understanding contemporary problems wars, continue to remain on the positions of the concept of total war. As an illustration of this thesis, we refer to the definition of war, which is given in the publications recent years. Thus, in the Encyclopedic Political Science Dictionary (1993), war is defined as "a social phenomenon, which is one of the forms of resolving socio-political, economic, ideological, as well as national, religious, territorial and other contradictions between states, peoples, nations, classes and social groups by means of armed violence". The war is associated with a large-scale armed struggle, with large casualties and destruction. M.N. Shakhov, rightly noting that the concept of "war" needs to be developed, offers the following definition: "War is a state of conflict in social relations, in which the political goals of states, peoples and individual strata are achieved by violent opposition with the massive use of armed means "(Military thought. 1996. No. 1). As you can see, only one way is recognized - violent counteraction with the massive use of armed forces. This indicates that our military science continues to consider only direct military actions to be the main ones and does not notice the indirect use of the armed forces, military power as a specific method of "non-painful" use of military power.

The prevailing concept of war today is the product of industrial civilization. It arose in the era of machine production, social-class and interstate antagonisms, during the period of the cult of armed violence, the emergence of mass armies formed on the basis of universal military duty. Its essence lies in the fact that the course and outcome of the war is decided by mass armies in battles. The beginning of this understanding of war was laid by K. Clausewitz in his work "On War", who, summarizing the experience of the Napoleonic wars, came to the conclusion that it is not maneuvering and capturing territories that determine the outcome of the war, but the destruction of the enemy's armed forces. “The armed forces of the enemy,” he wrote, “must be destroyed, i.e. brought to a state in which they can no longer continue the fight ... The bloody resolution of the crisis, the desire to destroy the enemy armed forces is the firstborn son of war.” These provisions, to a certain extent correct for their time, in the 19th-20th centuries they became dominant in understanding the content of war.Military theorists of the West (Moltke, Schlieffen, Foch), and later Soviet military figures, turned the idea of the decisive significance of the battle into an absolute, relegating to the background all other methods of achieving victory.This is how the theory of absolute, total war was formed, which is understood as the concept of preparing and waging an aggressive war, providing for its subordination to the interests of all spheres of the material and spiritual life of society and the use of any means and methods of mass destruction of personnel of the armed forces and civilians The concept of total war was first presented in a systematic way by General E. Ludendorff. This interpretation means that the war absorbs the entire economic, political and spiritual life of the country and involves the mass death of military personnel and civilians of the warring parties. The concept of total war was at the heart of the strategic orientations of World Wars 1 and 2. The most complete implementation of this concept was World War II. It lasted 6 years, there were 110 million people in the ranks of the armed forces. This war was the most bloody and destructive in the history of mankind. The barbaric nature of total wars also lies in the fact that the weapons used in them cause great damage to the civilian population. At the same time, the destructive nature of such wars is growing. Thus, in World War I, more than 10 million people died, of which 95% were military personnel and 5% were civilians, and in World War II, out of 50 million killed, 52% were military personnel and 48% were civilians. In the local conflicts of 1945-1982, 35 million people died, of which 30 million were civilians.

A nuclear missile war, if it is unleashed, will be fundamentally different from the “classical” war in its developed form, the essence of which is the continuation of politics by violent means. As a result of the change in the genetic and functional links between war and politics, politics and armed struggle, a probable nuclear missile war will lose its most important political function and become meaningless and irrational. In such a war, the means of waging it will outgrow the political and military goals, and the form of waging will supplant the political content. As a result, it will be dominated entirely and exclusively by armed struggle, which will no longer obey politics, but its own all-destroying logic. Inevitably getting out of the control of politics and destroying the very foundations of the existence of mankind, a nuclear missile war will be the end of social life, and, therefore, of all politics. This will be a “lethal” state of society, leading to the death of all life on Earth. Scientific analysis consequences of a nuclear missile war shows that its consequence will be the complete destruction of the human habitat, huge human losses associated with the direct impact on people of the damaging factors of nuclear weapons, which will inevitably lead to a “genetic and cancerous” catastrophe. Scientists suggest the degradation of the human race, the disintegration of the individual with the growth of aggressiveness, the desire for self-destruction. The existing industrial-economic and socio-political systems of the opposing sides will be destroyed in the course of a nuclear missile war. Real assessments of the entire complex of climatic, environmental, social, physical, medical, genetic and other possible consequences of a nuclear missile war lead to the conclusion that it is senseless, extremely dangerous and must be prevented. The achievement of such a level of development of war is evidence of its self-negation in the nuclear age. A potential nuclear war is no longer a war in its “classical” form. In theoretical terms, it represents, as it were, a return to the main quality of armed violence - the physical destruction of the enemy - but a return at a new qualitative level on a global, universal, planetary scale.

The concept of total war, which remained at the heart of the strategic orientations of many states of the world, including Russia, has historically outlived its usefulness at the end of the 20th century and has become an anachronism. Further large-scale use of nuclear missile weapons against armies and peoples in modern wars leads to a global catastrophe, the death of civilization and the environment. Humanity will not be able to survive another world war with the widespread use of weapons of mass destruction. There are serious reasons to believe that the world is entering a period of wars of a new generations, aimed not so much at the direct destruction of the enemy, but at achieving the political goals of the war without the battles of mass armies. The "cold war" testifies to the fact that an era of "civilized" wars is coming, in which political goals are achieved not through direct armed intervention, but through the use of other forms of violence, undermining the enemy's power from within. It was in it that the United States defeated the USSR without battles and bloodshed. " cold war"according to the main features, especially according to its results, it can be called the third world war. According to a number of military analysts, it makes sense to talk about the third world war, which broke out and almost died down before our eyes. It was not a classic, but a "velvet" war. Third once in the current century there has been a redistribution of spheres of influence by the leading world powers.The peculiarities of this war is an offensive in the absence of defense.The enemy turned out to be so demoralized by internal upheavals, so skillfully prepared that in the usual sense it cannot be called an adversary.The essence of the third world "velvet" war is information and strategic offensive, in which well-functioning means of psychological operations play the main role.The results of this war exceeded all expectations: the political goals of NATO were achieved - the socialist system with its once powerful economy and military potential was defeated; the territorial integrity and stability of civil society of a number of states were undermined , as a result of the action of false values and beliefs implanted in the minds of citizens of Eastern European states, the territorial collapse of some of them was achieved; the fragments of the collapsed Eastern world received the status of new components of the seriously changed world colonial system. Of the post-communist states and the vast majority of former Soviet republics, about 30 semi-colonial formations dependent on the leading Western countries are being formed. The Velvet War is not over yet. Its negative consequences are important not only for Russia. They also have their aspect for the countries of the Old World. The world has slid off its bipolar fulcrum. The world has become unipolar, which is fraught with serious dangers for the world community.

Specialists are well aware of NATO's arsenal of strategic concepts modernized since the Cold War, including the concept of deterrence (deterrence), advanced defense, and the operational-strategic concept of air-ground operations. Operation Desert Storm and the recent exemplary punishment of the Serbs, despite the dissimilarity of their causes, nevertheless had much in common. It became clear that NATO had taken on the role of the world's policeman. The armed forces of NATO allies gained unprecedented experience in conducting military offensive operations on foreign territory, and modern methods of armed struggle were used against the enemy, who had, as they say, our organization of troops, who mainly used our tactics and weapons. It should also be emphasized that, psychologically, the armies and the public of the NATO member states are adapted to conducting offensive military operations on foreign territory - through large-scale propaganda campaigns about "high-precision", "smart" and "humane" weapons, "surgical strikes", "clean local war. For professionals, the absurdity of such statements is obvious. In the Persian Gulf zone, NATO pilots fought not so much with Hussein's army, whose combat potential was not seriously affected, but with civilians, whose losses were never published.

As for the military actions of NATO against the Serbs, this is, first of all, gaining practical experience, accustoming the world community and psychologically preparing NATO soldiers for the impunity of military operations against the Slavs. An explosive situation remains almost along the entire perimeter of the Russian borders. The NATO military bloc is persistently expanding its zone of influence to the east to the borders of Russia. It is planned to create nuclear bases not only in Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, but also on the territory of the Baltic countries. In addition, more than 70 "hot spots" remain on the planet, more than twenty areas are assessed as zones of potential conflicts. Many of them are located on the territory of the CIS, representing a direct threat to Russia's security.

The current Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation outlines the main common features of modern warfare: spread to all spheres of life and existence of mankind; widespread use of indirect strategic actions (political and diplomatic efforts to prevent wars and armed conflicts, economic sanctions, means of information warfare, sea, air and land blockade of communications, demonstration of force); massive information preparation (information blockade, expansion, aggression), disorientation of public opinion in individual states and the world community as a whole; disorganization of the system of state and military control, blocking (disabling) of command and control systems for troops and weapons; the use of non-contact, other (including non-traditional) forms and methods of fire and electronic destruction; the use of the latest highly efficient (including those based on new physical principles) weapons systems and military equipment; catastrophic consequences of damage (destruction) of energy enterprises (primarily nuclear), chemical and other hazardous industries, infrastructure, communications, life support facilities; high probability of involvement of new states, escalation of armed struggle, expansion of the scale and range of means used; participation along with regular irregular (including illegal) armed formations. Russia is considered by many states as a potential adversary. The United States does not hide the fact that one of the potential dangers is the unstable political situation in Russia. Russia and some states of the "near abroad", for example, the nationalist circles of the Baltic countries, the leadership of Georgia, are considered an enemy.

The main efforts of Western analysts are focused not on local, but on large-scale wars. This is done not only by individual scientists, but also by entire corporations, the largest scientific centers working for the Pentagon and the US military-industrial complex. Various models of wars are considered with a perspective of 20-25 years in order to determine optimal long-term military programs, place orders for new weapons, and purposefully prepare the army and navy for war.

As for what the wars of the future may turn out to be, opinions in the press are very different, but they agree on one thing: the wars of the new technological era will not be like the two past world wars, because the material and technical base of the armies of the leading countries of the world has been radically updated in the post-war decades . So, if during the years of World War II the reach of strategic weapons, in particular, long-range aviation, was 500-800 km, then for current missiles, as well as the latest types of rocket-planes, there are practically no spatial restrictions. This means that the territory of any country, and globally, the entire planet, can become a theater of military operations. The destructive power of conventional combat weapons has increased hundreds of times.

The integration of weapons, automated reconnaissance and weapon control systems in the form of reconnaissance-strike, reconnaissance-fire systems using cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles made it possible to perform surgically precise operations with the aim of selectively destroying the most important targets, and with a guarantee and in a matter of minutes, regardless of their remoteness. The means of electronic warfare have acquired exceptional efficiency - from providing them they are turning into active means of destruction. Space assets are entering the arena of armed struggle. Electronics and computerization are invading military affairs on a broad front.

Along with classic weapons great attention is given to the development of non-traditional weapons, for example, non-lethal (non-lethal) technologies, electronic and electromagnetic means designed to disable communication systems, power systems, computer networks. Means are being developed to create all kinds of barriers that impede the movement of vehicles, incl. various foaming substances, intolerable smells and sounds. This is by no means a complete list of innovations in military affairs. All this necessitates a different look at the nature of the war of the future.

Among the most common definitions of the war of the future, researchers call: the war of informatics; the war of the space age; war of electronics and robotization, artificial intelligence. Currently, none of the scientists undertake to draw an accurate portrait of the war of the future. However, it is quite possible to outline its general contours, reveal trends, patterns, and predict the emergence of new forms and methods of management. Assessing the current state of armaments and military equipment (especially the prospects for their development), researchers come to the conclusion that a "controlled war" is quite possible, when the aggressor country is able to single-handedly, undividedly control the course of military events. This is achieved by resolute suppression of the enemy's will to resist, by the ability to paralyze his state and military administration from the first hours of the war, inflict a decisive defeat on the armed forces and thereby make it necessary to complete and unconditional surrender. It is expected that victory in this case will be achieved in the shortest possible time with low human losses and material costs. It is supposed to achieve a bloodless victory in many ways - political, diplomatic, economic, military (if possible, without conducting hostilities in the usual sense).

A new term "information-psychological confrontation" has appeared. Its essence lies in the fact that the main efforts in the fight against the enemy are directed not to the physical destruction of each weapon, but to the destruction of the information resource of the state, the control system, navigation and guidance channels. Power pressure is not excluded, but it is planned to use it first indirectly, i.e. by demonstrating military power in order to induce the enemy not to engage in armed confrontation, to force capitulation without war (ideal). To act from a position of strength, a decisive technological superiority over the enemy is necessary, primarily in science-intensive types of weapons - electronics, robotics, computerization, space tools and computer science.

The idea of a "controlled war" was first expressed by Herman Kahn (60s). In the West, the wars in the Persian Gulf and against Yugoslavia are considered to be its prototype. they are the standard for the wars of the post-industrial era - the era of computer science. Indeed, the command of the Multinational Force has demonstrated the ability to effectively use the achievement of surprise attacks; misleading the enemy; demoralization of the population, personnel of the Armed Forces; gaining information superiority; information system suppression; operational disguise.

Information warfare is not a new way of indirectly influencing the enemy. Intimidation, deceit, bribery, threats, blackmail, the desire to send him down the wrong path and thus control behavior in one form or another has been used since time immemorial. In the wars of the 20th and early 21st centuries, this took on a particularly large scale, began to be carried out in the form of large-scale, targeted, well-planned disinformation measures, and in some cases had a great effect. Thus, the fascist German command succeeded in achieving absolute strategic surprise in attacking Poland and quickly crushing its army. Quite successfully, the Nazi command managed to provide information cover for the invasion forces on the Soviet border, which put the Soviet Union in a critical situation.

One can judge how information and psychological operations are carried out on the basis of the experience of the war in the Persian Gulf zone. By definition of analysts, Iraq lost the war before the fighting began. As a result of diplomatic activity and careful political support for the US military action, it was possible to isolate Iraq internationally, including even among neighboring Arab states. The Iraqi army was subjected to a massive psychological impact. She was stunned, blinded, demoralized. According to the Pentagon, in Operation Desert Storm, the psychotropic losses of the Iraqis far exceeded the physical ones. Thus, during the 38-day air campaign, the damage to the Iraqis amounted to 10% in aviation and 18% in armored vehicles. artillery 20%, but as a result of counter-propaganda, the morale of the personnel decreased by 40-60%.

Using the experience of the Persian Gulf War, the United States continues to improve psychotropic weapons and information technology. Thus, out of 22 strategic-level military technologies determined for the future, 12 (more than half) are directly related to informatics. It is characteristic that in the budget of the US Department of Defense the total share of expenditures related to the development of control systems, communications, intelligence, electronic warfare and computerization, which form the basis of informatization, has recently reached 20% compared to 7% in the 80s. Thus, military actions in a "controlled war" fade into the background. They are regarded as the final phase of hostilities, when the political, diplomatic and other possibilities of bloodless crushing of the enemy state will be exhausted. It is planned to resort to them when predicting the guaranteed success of fleeting operations. The stake is placed on the first, powerful and sudden blow, which will be disarming, crushing. It follows from this that a state professing a purely defensive doctrine may find itself in an extremely difficult, if not critical, situation.

The conditions and methods of unleashing war are becoming more and more diverse. One of the effective strategic techniques used by the attacking side is "electronic shock" even before the first shot is fired. Thus, Israel's aggression against the Arab states (1967) began with the massive commissioning of electronic warfare. And if in this six-day war the preliminary electronic suppression lasted 2 hours, then in the war in the Persian Gulf zone - a day. The latest means of electronic warfare were used, as a result, for the first time, dominance on the air was seized, and the control of the air defense and aviation of Iraq was disorganized.

Predicting the nature of possible wars, it can be expected that a large number of currently unknown types of weapons and military equipment will be used, as well as various strikes and operations will be carried out. Among them can be: electronic, reconnaissance and fire, electronic fire, air assault, robotic, air raid, special, counterintelligence. According to experts, the factor determining the further development of the forms and methods of armed struggle is the growing imbalance between the means of attack and defense. Modern defense is not able to counteract the massive attack of the attacker. Its sustainability is problematic. The offensive capabilities of ever more powerful weapons will increase. This means the mistake of calculating with the outbreak of war to repel aggression with passive defensive actions, which inevitably dooms the defending side to defeat.

At present, there are more and more signs that allow us to believe that a possible large-scale war will be fleeting. This is determined by the presence of extremely powerful, destructive types of weapons capable of inflicting such a defeat on the enemy in a short time that he will not be able to feed the army. Therefore, it is erroneous to expect that in the course of the war it will be possible to expand the military economy, make up for lost time in peacetime, and accumulate the necessary strategic resources for conducting intense operations.

In the methods of military operations, there is a tendency to increase their spatial scope, the prevalence of remote operations over contact ones, without a clearly defined front and rear. The parties are increasingly striving to hit each other even before they come into direct contact. Success will be on the side of those who have great capabilities for conducting deep reconnaissance, have an advantage in long-range means of destruction and control, and are able to make decisions in a rapidly changing environment.

The US military leadership intends in future military operations to abandon weapons, the use of which entails huge casualties, destruction material assets and environmental disruption. Qualitatively new armed forces, according to the Americans, should be used not so much to conduct traditional military operations, but to deprive the enemy of the possibility of active resistance. This can be achieved by "surgical" strikes of high-precision weapons and the massive use of electronic countermeasures. A bet is being made on the development of electromagnetic weapons. Without killing people, such weapons can disrupt telephones, radars, computers, and other means of communication, navigation, guidance, and control.

The deep reasons for the expansion of the number of means of confrontation and its forms should be sought in the features of the modern interaction of the four global components of the planetary system in the form of society, biosphere, technosphere and infosphere. The driving force behind the development of means of warfare is society's need for resources, which predetermined the creation of non-traditional means of confrontation aimed at destroying the human environment. These tools have updated and supplemented the arsenal of modern civilization, which contains only military and non-military means of confrontation. The appearance of weapons of global destruction has once again created the conditions under which the systematic use of information, non-lethal and environmental weapons is capable of destroying the human environment.

The traditional non-military means of confrontation include ideological, religious and cultural, political, diplomatic, trade and economic, financial and credit, military and economic, technological, scientific and technical, asocial.

The list of traditional military means of confrontation includes weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological), weapons of group destruction (conventional weapons), weapons of personal destruction (cold weapons).

Non-traditional means of destruction include weapons of global destruction (information, non-lethal, environmental). Information weapons are understood as a set of means intended for violation in the form of copying, distortion, destruction of information resources at the stage of their creation, processing, distribution and storage. The main objects of influence of information weapons are software and information support itself, software, hardware and telecommunications, communication channels, human intelligence and mass consciousness.

In the concept of non-lethal weapons, funds are invested that destroy the process of functioning of man-made objects and the destruction of the technical base of human activity. Non-lethal weapons are designed to disable industrial and military facilities, communications, energy supply systems, various technical means, structural and operational materials, and the physiological and psychological state of a person.

Ecological weapons are used for military purposes for a certain impact on the atmosphere, near space, hydrosphere, lithosphere, the Earth's climate system, reserves of mineral raw materials and bioresources.

Wars and armed conflicts of the future will be generated not by separate, albeit important, but by a combination of various socio-political, economic, national and religious contradictions and causes.

The armed conflicts of the last decade of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century have shown a variety of forms and principles of warfare. A generalized type of armed conflict was not revealed.

The vast majority of armed conflicts were asymmetrical in nature, i.e. took place between opponents, significantly differing in the level and quality of the armed forces.

All conflicts unfolded in a limited area, but with the use of forces and means, one of the parties located outside the theater of operations. Armed conflicts were characterized by great bitterness.

The role of the initial period of the armed conflict has increased. As experience has shown, seizing the initiative of one of the parties at the initial stage of hostilities predetermined a positive outcome for it.

The course of hostilities confirmed the forecast of military scientists that large-scale clashes of the 21st century will be wars in which new types of high-precision weapons will play a decisive role, approaching nuclear in their effectiveness, but not having negative consequences for the environment.

The main role in the initial period of the wars of the last 15 years was assigned to long-range precision weapons operating in conjunction with aviation. In the final stage of the war, the ground forces dominated. The prediction of military scientists about the redistribution of the role of various spheres in armed confrontation came true. Advantage in the aerospace sphere and at sea predetermines success in an armed conflict. The ground forces consolidated the success achieved and ensured the achievement of the set goals.

Military practice has revealed an increase in the interdependence and mutual influence of actions at the strategic, operational and tactical levels in armed struggle.

The armed forces have confirmed their central role in the implementation of security operations. The objects of destruction were not only troops, military installations, but also the country's economy with its infrastructure, civilian population and territory. The role of the combat-ready reserve and the system of its mobilization and deployment has increased significantly in the outcome of an armed conflict. The fighting was characterized by a combination of maneuver operations and positional operations. A special role in the armed conflicts of recent years has been confirmed by the intelligence system with a single command and control center and well-protected points for collecting and processing intelligence information from all branches of the armed forces and special services. A stable duplicated system of command and control at all levels of command and control has retained its significance.

The key condition for victory in almost all conflicts was to undermine the normal spirit of the troops and stimulate unrest in the officer corps.

According to the reasonable opinion of N.I. Dorokhov, who studies the history scientific knowledge about the war, war is studied by everyone and no one. It is quite obvious that a period has come in the development of the "science of war" when it is necessary to generalize the experience of studying various aspects of the war and the main "instrument" of its conduct - the army, to combine the efforts of many sciences to study a wide range of problems in this area and, on this basis, to create a common system of knowledge about the war and the army. Here, the most priority areas may be the following: an assessment of the socio-political essence of modern war, its influence on all processes taking place in society. These include: research into ways to prevent war; strengthening international, regional and national security; knowledge of its most general laws; elucidation of the correlation of war, military affairs with politics, economics and other phenomena of public life, the study of military security, the development of the Armed Forces and the processes of armed struggle with its inherent laws; the study of non-military forms of means of combating the enemy: economic, scientific-political, diplomatic, etc.

Thus, the origin of wars is a multifactorial process. The origins of war are rooted in geographical, natural-biological, confessional, technical, ethnic, psychological, socio-political, economic and other forms of being. The main sources of aggressiveness that give rise to wars and armed conflicts include a contradictory mode of production, injustice, inequality, violence, totalitarian political regimes, extremist social classes, groups, movements, power, militant ideology and chauvinistic morality, and the dominant military power of the state or coalition. War is a way of resolving the socio-economic, political, spiritual and ideological contradictions of society through armed struggle. War is an act of political violence, or rather a chain of acts of violence organized and distributed in time and space, based on the use of weapons. War is such a state of society, which is characterized by an active armed clash of opposing socio-political forces, full or partial mobilization of available material, human, spiritual resources to resolve a social conflict and the subordination of the main spheres of public life to these tasks. The essence of war is manifested in its laws. War has a number of features that distinguish it from other socio-political phenomena and forms of armed violence, such as military conflict, armed uprising and others.

Wars are generated, first of all, by deep socio-political and socio-economic reasons, which are of an objective-subjective nature. Its content corresponds to military-political and military-strategic goals achieved by means of armed violence. The war leads to a qualitative change in the state of all spheres of public life: social, political, economic, spiritual, because. they are undergoing a radical restructuring on a military footing.

The main weapon of warfare is the armed forces and other armed formations capable of waging large-scale armed struggle. In the course of the socio-economic and political development of society and military affairs, at a certain stage, other types of struggle in war appear: economic, diplomatic. ideological, etc. There is a need to create a military organization of the state, with the help of which wars began to be waged by states and peoples. Wars, as a rule, lead to large human casualties, to the loss of material and spiritual values, and have a negative impact on social progress. Wars are classified according to a number of grounds: socio-political, military-technical, large-scale, historical, civilizational, and others.

The most widespread at the present time is the concept of total war generated by technogenic civilization. A nuclear missile war in its consequences is not a war in the classical sense. It is meaningless and threatens all life on the planet. Among the new concepts of warfare in theory and military practice, "velvet" warfare and "controlled warfare" have become famous. Distinctive features of the wars of the future, researchers call the increased importance of computer science, electronics, robotization of artificial intelligence, the determining role in the war of space and aerospace operations. A special role in the preparation and conduct of hostilities is assigned to information-psychological confrontation, electronic means of combat. The imbalance between the means of attack and defense is increasing. The attacking side gets a decisive advantage in the initial period of the war. New weapons and military technologies are a means of ensuring dominance in the military-political sphere and contribute to the emergence of non-traditional methods of warfare.

The presence of global factors in the world, such as the depletion of non-renewable natural resources and their uneven availability in countries and regions, the growth of the world's population, especially in Southeast Asia, the incompleteness of the divisions of spheres of influence and disputed territories, the formation of emerging world centers of power, degradation of the environment. environment and a complex of other global problems of our time, under certain conditions, can give rise to military clashes of varying degrees of intensity.

The presence of external and internal sources of military danger and military threats requires from the subjects of military-political relations science-based, economically secure and spiritually justified actions to ensure peaceful, decent living conditions for people.

Questions for self-control

1. Development of views on the causes of wars in the history of military-philosophical thought.

2. The essence of war as a socio-political phenomenon.

3. Classification of wars: based options.

5. The nature of possible future military conflicts.

6. The nature of conflicts and wars in the modern world.

7. Classification of wars: history and modernity.

8. Polemology as a scientific direction about the war in foreign political science.

9. Modern socio-philosophical problems of war.

10. International security and the nature of military conflicts of the future.

11. Clash of Civilizations: Perspectives and Alternatives.

Literature

1. Borovkov M.I. Worldview and methodological problems of war, peace and the army in the light of new military-political thinking. Kharkov, 1991.

2. Military history of the Fatherland from ancient times to the present day. M., 1995.

3. Military encyclopedia: in 8 volumes. M., 1994.

4. Danilenko I.E. Anthology of domestic military-political thought. M., 2003.

5. Zolotarev O.V. Evolution of views on the sources of armed conflicts and new problems of theory and practice. Political conflicts: from violence to consent. M., 1996.

6. Zotov O.V. The meaning of war in the history of mankind. M., 2001.

7. Marx K., Engels F., Lenin V.I. About the war and the army. M., 1982.

8. Kapto A.S., Serebryannikov V.V. Wars of Russia//Dialogue, 2002, No. 6.

9. Kirshin Yu.Ya., Popov V.M., Savushkin R.A. The political content of modern wars. M., 1987.

10. Clausewitz K. About the war. M., 1941.

11. Serebryannikov V.V. Sociology of war. M., 1998.

12. Slesarev A.E. Philosophy of war. M., 2003.

13. Tyushkevich S.A. War and Modernity. M., 1986.

14. Tyushkevich S.A. Laws of war: essence, mechanism of action, factors of use. M., 2002.

15. Philosophy/Under. Tot. Ed. B.I. Kaverin. M., 2004.

16. Cold War. New approaches, new documents. M., 1995.