10 MILITARY CONFLICTS,
WHICH WE MANAGED TO AVOID
History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood... but we are all human, and sometimes you just want to fantasize about “what would happen if...”. Moreover, often the consequences of these “if only…” are very serious, and millions of human lives are at stake. Here are 10 cases in world history when several parties were on the verge of conflict, but at the last moment they happily avoided it...
The Cuban Missile Crisis is, of course, the most famous case in modern history when two superpowers, the USA and the USSR, stood on the verge of nuclear war. It was provoked by the actions of the United States, which deployed missiles in Turkey capable of delivering nuclear warheads to the western part of the USSR. In response, the USSR placed its missiles in Cuba, the United States imposed a blockade, reconnaissance planes were shot down, and so on and so forth.
As a result, a crisis erupted that could well have ended with a US invasion of Cuba and, possibly, a Soviet attack on the Americans. The situation was saved by the efforts of Soviet diplomats in Washington and the cool head of then US President John Kennedy, who did not follow the lead of the “hawks” from the Pentagon.
Not all countries have come to terms with the fact that Great Britain used the entire continent as one huge prison. American researchers have recently established that there was a plan in France to capture Sydney. It was compiled in 1802 by the leadership of the French expedition and the shores of Australia. The “infiltrators” believed that only 1,800 soldiers would be enough to capture the city and that once the prisoners were released, they would help deal with the remaining British soldiers and subjugate the surrounding settlements.
The plan was never carried out and it is not known for certain why. Historians believe that this was due to the defeat in the Battle of Trafalgar - having lost a significant part of its fleet, France lost the ability to fight far from its native shores for a long time.
In March 1969, the USSR and the PRC transferred the dispute over Damansky Island, located on the Ussuri River on the border between the two states, from a diplomatic to a military level - at first the border guards simply fought, and 10 days later a real battle took place, which the USSR won only because the Soviet The military violated the order not to interfere in the border outpost conflict and opened fire on the Chinese from multiple launch rocket systems.
The crisis that broke out was quickly resolved, and the island went to China. This conflict, until recently, was not considered anything more serious than a simple border incident. However, in 2010, the newspaper Le Figaro published a series of articles claiming that in response to Chinese aggression on the island, the USSR was ready to launch a nuclear strike, and was stopped from doing so only by the intervention of American diplomats, who threatened a “retaliation strike” on Soviet cities.
The USSR has always had its interests in the Middle East, and this manifested itself in different ways, including in the intentions of a military invasion of... Israel. A number of historians claim that during the Six-Day War, which took place from June 5 to 10, 1967, the USSR was preparing a full-scale invasion of Israel with the goal of capturing or destroying its nuclear arsenals.
Moreover, it is believed that the USSR was the “conductor” of the conflict, hoping that Israel would not be able to fight on two fronts. The plans were confused by the rapid victory of the Israeli troops - no one believed that the war would last only a few days.
The second time the USSR threatened to launch an invasion of Israel was in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War and even quite officially put seven airborne divisions on high alert. The United States, Israel's main ally, responded by sounding the alarm on nuclear forces, but Israel did not tempt fate and stopped the attack on Arab positions, which had by that time been victorious.
The First World War might not have started or would have started much earlier and with a different balance of power if the Fashoda crisis had not ended in a diplomatic victory. It happened in 1898 against the backdrop of the struggle between France and Great Britain for the division of Africa. It all happened in the small town of Fashoda (today Kodok in South Sudan). The city was captured by a small (120 soldiers) detachment of Major Marchand, which aroused the indignation of Great Britain, which considered the upper Nile its patrimony.
This was followed by a series of “dances with tambourines” around this territory, which resulted in the arrival of Anglo-Egyptian troops to the city. However, it still did not come to a military conflict - Great Britain, which, by and large, did not need a war with France, tried to take its rival “out of fear” and declared that it would consider the capture of Fashoda as a casus belli (a reason for declaring war) , but giving the French a chance to get out of the city. France at that moment needed the war even less, and she submitted.
The very first incident of the Cold War occurred in Germany, and specifically in Berlin, when in 1948 the USSR began a total blockade of West Berlin, trying to subjugate the entire city. The United States and its allies considered various options for solving the problem, including the military, but common sense prevailed and, instead of trying to break the blockade by force, the United States began delivering goods and products to the “besieged” West Berlin by air.
In just 15 months, while the blockade lasted, over 275 thousand transport aviation flights were made to the city, delivering more than 2.3 million tons of cargo. As a result, the USSR, realizing the futility of the blockade, lifted it.
India and Pakistan have been in a protracted conflict since the 1940s and regularly skirmish along the border, but they have only once been on the verge of a full-scale war involving nuclear weapons. This happened after Pakistani terrorists attacked the Indian Parliament on October 1, 2001, killing dozens of people and injuring many more. Considering that only two years earlier another war had ended on the border, the Indian government, without hesitation, put a million soldiers under arms.
In response to this, Pakistan also carried out general mobilization. Forces were pulled to the border, but things never came to a full-scale war - both sides understood well that it could start with a rifle shot and end with nuclear strikes. As a result, after standing at the border for 10 months, the parties parted ways. However, nothing has changed globally in relations between the two countries.
Taiwan has always been like a bone in Beijing's throat, and over the past 50 years, the PRC has several times undertaken acts of aggression against the rebellious island. The United States was Taiwan's ally and always did not directly intervene in the armed conflict.
The United States made it clear that it was ready for anything, including a nuclear strike on Chinese territory. As we see today, none of the crises led to war between the United States and China, but Beijing acquired nuclear weapons and it became much more difficult to threaten them.
The Second World War could have started a year earlier - and ended then - if Hitler had insisted on implementing his plan to capture Czechoslovakia, called Fall Grün. The start of the operation was scheduled for September 28, 1938, but many in Germany were against this, since Czechoslovakia’s then allies France and Great Britain made it clear that they would immediately enter the war. In Berlin they even seriously considered the option of arresting Hitler if he single-handedly gave the order to start the operation.
The Munich Conference finally put an end to the operation, and France and Great Britain suddenly lost interest in Czechoslovakia, which, having transferred the Sudetenland to Germany, suddenly lost all its fortifications. As a result, the invasion of Czechoslovakia took place on March 15, 1939, was almost bloodless and went “unnoticed” by the world, which undoubtedly gave Hitler confidence. The rest is history. Real.
The expedition of the Second Pacific Squadron, which died ingloriously in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, was “cursed” from the very beginning. As soon as it left the Baltic Sea, it provoked a serious crisis with Great Britain - as a result of the paranoia of Russian sailors and confusion in communications, several British fishing ships were shot down.
One ship was sunk and two sailors were killed. This caused fury in the UK and it got to the point that the British fleet blocked the Russians in a Spanish port and insisted on a full-scale investigation. Russia was saved from war with England by 65 thousand pounds sterling and apologies made at the highest level.
June 23rd, 2015 , 07:38 pm
The United States will deploy tanks, artillery and other military equipment in the Baltics and Eastern Europe, US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said in Tallinn.
According to Carter, American heavy weapons will be deployed in Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania and Poland, Reuters reports. Some of the equipment will also be stored in Germany.
The agency, citing the US Department of Defense, reports that the deployed equipment will include 250 tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and self-propelled howitzers. According to Pentagon officials, each of these countries will have the force necessary to equip units ranging in size from a company (about 150 people) to a battalion (750 people). Most of these weapons are already in Europe, according to the agency’s interlocutors.
Carter also said the United States will help NATO allies operate a cyber defense center located in Estonia.
P.S. I wonder what they are. Mainly under the guise of exercises. Or without any explanation at all. Why was it necessary to legalize some of the other movements and announce them officially?
Since not a very large number of armored vehicles is striking (people accustomed to estimating their number in operations on the scale of World War II may laugh - only 1000 units, including 250 tanks), it can be assumed that this is being done to lull the vigilance of the Russian leadership, which, to put it mildly, feels some concern about this. Well, it seems like they announced it officially, and the announced number is not too large. In fact, much more has already been transferred - the trains have been heading east since last fall. The backbone of the NATO strike force is gradually becoming overgrown with meat. The Americans emphasize that equipment and military uniforms are being deployed without soldiers, who will arrive on a rotational basis. But the main thing is to create headquarters, ammunition depots, military equipment, and ammunition in advance. Masses of trained soldiers can be brought in a few hours before the war.
In this regard, it can be assumed that the calm in Ukraine will last until the United States is completely ready to attack Russia along the entire front from Norway to Georgia. So there may be no more rehearsals for the attack on Donetsk. There will be talk about peace, as usually happens before a war. And then they will start everywhere and at once. The Armed Forces of Ukraine are taken under American command as unpretentious and motivated cannon fodder, which fetters significant forces of our ground forces and which is then not very sorry to be used for slaughter in order to achieve decisive results on other sectors of the Western Front.
As we have already said, the most convenient springboard for an attack is not Ukraine, but the Baltic states, from where you can strike in the direction of Smolensk, cutting off Belarus, and in the direction of St. Petersburg and Moscow. From Norway they plan to attack the Northern Fleet bases on the Kola Peninsula. The situation is also complicated by the involvement of previously neutral countries - Sweden and Finland - in American plans.
While the Russian media and court bloggers continue to indulge themselves and the people with illusions about the “split between the United States and Europe,” the Americans at the expert level are not particularly hiding their intentions. The other day they were quite openly voiced by the head of Stratfor, George Friedman: “I don’t care about NATO. When we need to fight, we’ll say it. For now, we’re just preparing for war. And let them not interfere.”
In this regard, the moral unpreparedness of the Russian leadership to resolve the Ukrainian issue before a clash with the main forces of the American coalition seriously complicates the situation on our western borders and will inevitably lead to additional unnecessary casualties among the Russian military and civilians.
As Machiavelli said: "War cannot be avoided. It can only be postponed to the benefit of your enemy." Of course, the aphorism is not true for all situations, but specifically it describes ours surprisingly accurately.
The inevitability of socio-political contradictions in the life of society does not mean that in their resolution it is impossible to prevent extreme violence and, above all, armed, military, and various forms of conflict associated with it. The relevance of the importance of preventing military conflict has especially increased with the development of scientific and technological progress in military affairs and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction on our planet.
At the same time, there is a theoretical and methodological problem in defining the very concept of “conflict prevention”. This is due to the fact that the objective inconsistency of the life of society leads to the impossibility of avoiding conflict as such. In accordance with this, the question is not to eliminate conflict altogether, but to prevent the manifestation of its negatively destructive functions 1 .
To find out the content of the category “conflict prevention”, it is necessary to turn to an analysis of the dynamics of conflict development. In accordance with the generally accepted methodology for conducting such analysis, any conflict in its development goes through three mandatory stages: latent (hidden) or generation stage when the conflict is not yet noticeable in society and does not have an effective impact on its life; practical action stage when the conflict has already become a “part” of the life of society and its functions (mostly negative) are openly manifested; conflict resolution stage when the conflict interaction is removed, or the contradiction that led to the conflict is resolved.
At the first stage, there is an awareness of the presence of an objective or subjective contradiction, awareness of one’s interests, choice of goals, methods and means of the upcoming struggle, selection of allies, etc. During the second stage, the parties are already taking specific actions to resolve the contradiction. It is this stage that is usually associated in the public consciousness as the conflict itself. In relation to a military conflict, at this stage the direct use of armed violence begins. The third stage of the conflict is, first of all, the cessation of violent actions of its subjects towards each other. The conflict ends due to the start of peace negotiations between the parties, or the possible capitulation of one of them, or due to the inability of the parties (one of the parties) to continue the fight.
Thus, conflict prevention is understood as the activity of subjects of political relations aimed at neutralizing the arisen and conscious contradiction leading to conflict actions, or preventing the destructive impact of an existing conflict on one or another side of the social system. In other words, preventing conflict in the vast majority of cases means preventing it from escalating into the second stage, when its negative and destructive functions begin to manifest themselves. In this case, the “prevention mechanism” is directed at those social processes that determine the conflict or can initiate its further deepening, that is, at the contradictory relations of subjects of society. In this regard, depending on the focus of preventive actions, prevention itself can be partial or complete.
Partial prevention is achieved by blocking one or more (but not all) causes of an emerging conflict, resulting in limiting its negative impact on the warring parties and social development as a whole. In this case, it is possible for the conflict to escalate into the stage of practical action, but this excludes its intensification and the use of extreme means and methods of struggle. In this case, naturally, it is necessary to state the presence of a socially noticeable conflict, which presupposes the further functioning of a management mechanism for resolution.
Complete prevention implies the comprehensive neutralization of all factors and conditions that determine the emerging conflict, which makes it possible to direct the interaction of subjects into the channel of their cooperation in the name of realizing coinciding interests. Both prevention strategies, only to varying degrees of implementation, imply the coordination of the positions and interests of conflicting subjects and the achievement of agreement on the most important issues of public life.
Is it still possible to have a proactive influence on social processes that make it possible to prevent conflict even before its inception? Of course, the deliberate creation of social conditions conducive to preferential cooperation makes it possible to prevent the emergence of antagonistic contradictions. This, however, does not mean eliminating inconsistency altogether, and therefore allows us to talk about conflict prevention precisely in the context of our reasoning.
Thus, when determining the range of factors determining the conflict to preempt or slow down its development (with the possible use of violence), reasonable political leadership must be carried out consistently, eliminating one cause after another. In particular, if discontent and tension in socio-political relations are caused by injustice suffered by one or another social group (infringement of political rights, restriction of national and cultural self-expression, etc.), then certain compensation from the state for the damage caused and restoration of legal rights is necessary and freedom. It is the identification of the degree of disagreement between subjects and active intervention in the process of social relations that makes it possible to prevent the development of a conflict at the stage of its inception.
In this regard, the most important element of the conflict prevention algorithm is forecasting - drawing up an image of the conflict and determining the dynamics of its likely development. The main thing here is to extrapolate the current situation to the future state of the entire system, as a result of which a model of the possible development of a conflict situation is built.
In the course of forecasting, first of all, the contradiction that led to the emergence of a conflict situation is determined. At the same time, the accuracy of defining a contradiction makes it possible to reliably identify those aspects of social life, the neutralization of which will help stabilize the situation and de-escalate the conflict. In the future, it is necessary to identify trends in changing the situation in the event of a contradiction developing, or to block it. This mental operation involves a description of the totality of events that manifest a problem in the interaction of subjects, as well as the logic of the social process - the objective sequence and interconnection of events. All this is carried out with mandatory consideration of the norms of functioning of the analyzed system (subsystem), temporal and spatial factors of its change, socio-economic, political, ideological, socio-psychological and other conditions.
It should be noted that the description of the event series and the analysis of the logic of the process of changing the situation does not allow us to unambiguously predict a possible conflict, since the process of its formation is influenced by a number of phenomena that are difficult to take into account, primarily of a subjective nature (the psychological and emotional mood of a particular socio-political force, their level of tolerance, etc.). Therefore, no matter how correct the scientific analysis of events and their logic may be, we can only talk about developing certain options for the expected manifestations of a conflict situation. Forecasting a conflict is only a prerequisite for prevention, a tool that ensures it. Prevention itself is carried out using a complex system of methods and means. Among them are such as achieving consensus between social actors; combination of interests - subordination of non-main interests to the main ones, temporary - permanent, current - promising; suppression of individual elements of interests; separation of conflicting interests, etc.
If we talk about preventing internal political conflicts, historical practice has developed a number of specific methods. The inherent specificity of foreign policy relations allows us to speak to a greater extent only about the possible creation of conditions conducive to the prevention of military conflicts, that is, certain directions of action by states and the entire world community to prevent international political conflicts.
Due to the current modern military-political situation, military force remains the main means of truly preventing armed violence. In the context of existing socio-political and economic imbalances, ideological disagreements at all levels of spiritual relationships between people, psychological imbalance of certain segments of the population, including at the level of leaders of some states, the presence on Earth of a huge number of weapons, including those uncontrolled by official structures, make military force is an integral means of modern international (and domestic) politics. In this regard, the most important area of prevention is the implementation of an armed “strategy of deterrence” of other states from resolving emerging disputes by military means. . The most important method in this direction is the creation of one’s own military potential, the use of which could threaten a potential aggressor with unacceptable damage.
Preventing military conflict with the help of a “strategy of containment” was observed at the dawn of human history, but this strategy received its developed form in the middle of the twentieth century, during the fierce confrontation between the two world socio-political systems and the two great nuclear powers that represented them - the USSR and the USA . This is explained by the fact that previously, damage to the losing side was often expressed in the loss of part of the territory, change of dynasty or government, transition to the dominance of the winner, loss of its role and position in the system of power relations, etc. The emergence and proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction gave this strategy much greater importance. The threat began to be associated not simply with defeat during an armed confrontation, but with a risk to the very existence of its participants, regardless of the outcome of the conflict.
The experience of implementing a containment strategy has shown that the balance of power, strategic parity, does not at all imply absolute equality between the subjects of a potential conflict. Deterrence can also be carried out on the basis of asymmetries in the availability, quantity or effectiveness of certain types of weapons. But the effectiveness of deterrence is always determined by the magnitude and significance of the damage that can be inflicted on the enemy. Therefore, it was not the equality of possible damage, but its unacceptable level that ensured in the middle of the twentieth century. not only the interests of the national defense of the USSR and the USA, but also the maintenance of relatively durable international peace and the stability of the global political order. Even with the inequality of military potentials of the USSR and the USA (relative parity was achieved only by the end of the 70s of the twentieth century), none of the numerous conflicts of that period, which were fought by friends, allies and clients, nor the direct participation of these powers in many of these conflicts, not even their almost direct collision in such acute international political conflicts as Berlin and the Caribbean, did not develop into a nuclear catastrophe.
At the same time, the “strategy of containment” is becoming one of the reasons for the desire to create increasingly powerful and numerous armed forces. The desire for this has become unbearable even for such a former great power as the USSR. The created huge arsenal of means of armed struggle, seemingly intended for strategic deterrence, actually exceeded not only its required level, but also the country’s capabilities. Moreover, it ultimately turned out to be inconsistent with such fundamental strategic goals and real interests as ensuring security and territorial value. But this does not mean that in modern conditions of the emerging trend towards a monopolar world order, the “strategy of containment” has outlived its usefulness as an effective tool for preventing military conflicts.
Modern legal acts of the Russian Federation, in particular the Military Doctrine, clearly state that the goal of Russian policy is to eliminate nuclear war by deterring the outbreak of aggression against our country and its allies. The Doctrine officially states that the Russian Federation can use nuclear weapons not only against other nuclear powers, but also against non-nuclear countries. Similar provisions exist in the doctrinal documents of other countries.
At the same time, the presence in the modern world of a huge amount of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction is not able to “contain” military conflicts using conventional weapons. Moreover, scientific and technological progress has given conventional weapons such power that, according to certain indicators, even today can be comparable to weapons of mass destruction. Fear of the consequences of using nuclear weapons is by no means a 100% guarantee against their use by the most extremist forces, terrorists, or as a result of technical failures. In this regard, there was a need to search for qualitatively different ways to prevent international armed conflicts.
Based on the principles of democratic development of the world (equality of the parties and the priority of universal human values, overcoming the ideology of force and domination in relations between people, countries, systems, etc.), the main directions for preventing military political conflicts at the present stage of historical development can be the following.
Further comprehensive internationalization of the life of the world community in all spheres and, above all, economic, political and cultural.
An analysis of the modern socio-political and economic situation has shown that the process of internationalization is becoming dominant in modern international relations. Evidence of this is the existing economic unions, communities, and joint ventures that have existed for decades and are being created. Scientific and technological progress, having caused unprecedented changes in the sphere of production, at the same time radically changed its structure, strengthened integration processes, expanded the flow of goods, capital, services, information, and labor between states and regions. That is why the growing process of economic interdependence of states today largely restrains the disruption of emerging ties by military means. It seems that not a single civilized state in the modern world, based on its own economic gain, will resort to massive bombing of another if their economic development largely depends on each other. Moreover, as a result of the current situation, we can confidently state that if economic relations at one time gave rise to social violence, then in modern conditions the internationalization of economic relations and economic benefit in every possible way creates conditions conducive to the prevention of conflicts with the use of destructive military force.
An important aspect of solving the problem we are considering is political internationalization. The most important legal act of this process was the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, signed by 33 European states, as well as the USA and Canada in Helsinki on August 1, 1975. Largely thanks to this, the “construction of a pan-European home” is now actively underway. Subsequently, the European Community, on the basis of the Maastricht Treaty (1991), created a powerful association of developed states on the continent, which transferred large state powers to common bodies. The CSCE was institutionalized at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in Helsinki (1992). The functions of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have been expanded to include the possibility of conducting peacekeeping operations in areas of interstate conflicts. In the 90s last century, integration processes in the Canada-USA-Mexico region intensified.
At the same time, it should be noted that in recent years the OSCE has been gradually losing its stabilizing functions. This is due, first of all, to the fact that its functioning was based on the principle of securing and respecting the borders that emerged as a result of the results of the Second World War. The events of the 80-90s. The twentieth century completely redrew the political map of Europe, thus undermining the political and legal foundations of the OSCE. In addition, without having its own military instrument for implementing the agreements reached, with the beginning of NATO expansion, the OSCE practically lost the opportunity to become an independent effective security system in Europe.
It is necessary to state the fact of disintegration processes, both political and socio-economic, in the Eastern European and Central Asian regions. The Commonwealth of Independent States, proclaimed in place of the USSR, is still far from the integrated level that existed between the republics of the former union. Economic, political, military, cultural ties are still far from the requirements of today, do not contribute to the normal progressive development of peoples and, therefore, do not serve as a condition for preventing and overcoming political conflicts, including those involving the use of military force.
The next direction of preventing military conflicts is strict adherence by all countries and peoples to the principle of peaceful coexistence. In modern conditions of the political world order, the principle of peaceful coexistence has acquired qualitatively new features. This is reflected in the fact that peaceful coexistence until the mid-80s. The 20th century was viewed as, firstly, a form of class struggle of the proletariat in the international arena and, secondly, as a principle of coexistence of states with different socio-political systems. In the new conditions, when modern all-destructive weapons (primarily atomic) have become the striking force of many armies of the world (and their number is increasing), the principle of peaceful coexistence becomes universal and applies to all countries and peoples, regardless of the level of their socio-economic development or political regime , religious adherence, etc. In the nuclear age, peaceful coexistence must become the highest universal principle of interstate relations.
The main content of this principle is the recognition by all subjects of international relations of the right of every people to freely choose the path of development and the inadmissibility of its imposition from the outside on any state and society, as well as the recognition of the objectively existing multivariate nature of social development. Each group of states, each country individually has its own specific interests, which must be taken into account in international relations, which, in turn, implies complete non-interference in the internal affairs of other peoples and states. The latter provision, of course, excludes cases of threat to international security resulting from the aggravation and intensification of an internal political conflict. But in these conditions, foreign intervention is possible only with the sanction of the international community (currently the UN Security Council).
In the context of a constant increase in the number of weapons and improvement of their quality, the most important direction in preventing military-political confrontation is reducing the level of military confrontation, that is, a continuous, consistent and uniform reduction of weapons and, above all, weapons of mass destruction. This area is perhaps one of the most important in preventing conflicts with the use of armed forces, or, in any case, in reducing their destructive consequences.
It is well known that until about the mid-80s. last century, one of the main material foundations for the process of destabilization of international relations was the unrestrained arms race, which covered almost all the leading countries of the world. This led to the fact that the threshold was surpassed, beyond which a further build-up of military force became simply absurd. New, more advanced types of weapons, created as a counterbalance or instead of existing models, were no longer able to provide security benefits to any one country, since their very appearance made the situation in the world even more unstable.
Moreover, the build-up of weapons and military preparations has drawn into its orbit not only highly developed countries, but also countries with weak economic levels. The acquisition of modern, expensive weapons and equipment undermines the economy of these countries, which already does not provide all the social needs of the people. The gap in economic development between advanced and lagging countries is increasingly widening. Today it reaches a difference of 30-40 times. All this, of course, contributes to conflict situations.
Without dwelling in detail on the disclosure of the disarmament process, we will highlight only two aspects that directly affect the prevention of military conflicts.
Firstly, this is the need for mutual, uniform and equivalent disarmament of all potentially warring parties, all countries. At the same time, the inadmissibility of a monopoly of leadership by one of the parties in the development and introduction of new weapons, including those of a defensive nature. It is difficult to count on mutual peaceful relations in a world torn apart by contradictions, when one of the parties has undeniable advantages in the field of weapons and military force. Consequently, it is necessary to constantly maintain military-strategic parity.
Secondly, in modern conditions, when absolute control over the disarmament processes and the development of new weapons is impossible, it is necessary to fully develop trust and cooperation in these areas. In particular, joint research in the military field, for example, in the development of missile defense systems, should reliably protect the world from the possibility of single unauthorized and provocative launches. Trust must be inherent not only in the general disarmament process and joint military development. Trust should become a characteristic feature of all political relations, not only in the international arena, but also in domestic politics. Confidence that the former rival and current partner will always comply with the agreements reached is the most important preventive condition for avoiding conflict situations. Trust, before coming to the realm of politics, must arise in the spiritual, ideological sphere. Opposing views should not cause suspicion towards the other party.
The next direction of preventing international armed conflicts is strengthening the role of the system of international intergovernmental organizations, such as the UN, OSCE and others in the field of legal regulation of relations between countries and peoples.
The functioning of large international organizations in the twentieth century, such as the League of Nations and the UN, was certainly an important factor that left its mark on the relationship between peoples during this historical period. However, created mainly to prevent and overcome international conflicts, these organizations did not fully meet (the League of Nations) and today meet (the UN) their functional purpose. The League of Nations was unable to prevent the Second World War, and the UN today is content with a very symbolic role. The recent suppression of the aggressive aspirations of some states, thanks to UN sanctions on the use of force, does not provide any guarantees that justice will prevail in the future. In this regard, strengthening the role of the UN and other authoritative international organizations is put forward as one of the directions for preventing armed political confrontation .
The main task of these organizations in the context of the problem under consideration is to lead the construction of a comprehensive system of international regional and universal security. The specific goals of the UN in ensuring international security are: identification at the earliest stage of situations fraught with conflicts; eliminating sources of danger before violence erupts, primarily through diplomacy; active peacekeeping efforts aimed at solving the problems that caused the conflict; implementation of a wide range of measures in the post-confrontation period in order to maintain peace and implement agreements reached with the help of mediators; constant readiness to promote peacebuilding in its various aspects and the establishment of peaceful, mutually beneficial relations between entities that were previously at war with each other.
Consideration of the main directions of preventing military conflicts allows us to draw some conclusions.
Firstly, an analysis of the practical application of the considered methods of prevention shows that their theoretical development is a kind of writing, with a certain degree of convention, of an “ideal picture.” There are no universally constructed models both in the emergence and course of a conflict, and in the processes of its prevention and resolution. Depending on the current socio-political situation, various methods and techniques may be used, transforming one into another, and sometimes used simultaneously.
Secondly, some methods and techniques of prevention, developed by world practice, have been used for literally centuries. However, all of them are in the nature of temporary prevention of a conflict situation. In this regard, I would like to emphasize once again that “absolute prevention” of a conflict can only occur with the removal of the contradiction that gives rise to it. But, since social contradictions that objectively exist and arise in society are the source of its development, it is impossible to talk about the existence or the need to develop a universal method that will remove any confrontation in the future. Only adherence by all socio-political forces to the laws of social development, which determines the progress and growth of its material well-being, can ensure a significant reduction in the intensity of the process of resolving objectively arising problems .
In preventing potential military conflicts, only simultaneous and joint efforts in all directions, aimed at finding mutually acceptable ways to resolve the conflict that has arisen, can give an effective result.
1 Negative functions of conflict: destabilizing- conflict can lead to disintegration and destabilization of society as a whole, or any of its systems; changes in power relations- conflict can adversely affect for the necessary change power relations and their structures; destructive - military conflict with the use of armed violence leads to to the loss of people and material assets (in modern conditions - mass). Positive functions of conflict: management, regulation of social tension- the conflict makes it possible to restore the necessary socio-political balance, political stability, and contributes to the resumption of cooperation in the relationships between its participants; communication and information– the conflict allows its participants to gain a more complete understanding not only of the opponent, but also of other subjects of the social process; maintaining and strengthening socio-political stability.
Only the process of globalization has finally begun to convey to people one simple truth: we have one planet. If it is destroyed, then there will simply be nowhere to live. Everyone will die. That is why the problem of peace and disarmament is so acute. It would seem that nothing could be easier: get together and come to an agreement. Meetings are constantly taking place at the UN, responsible and wise people are trying to reduce the level of tension on the planet, and new outbreaks of tension are springing up like mushrooms after rain. And every time we have to discuss together how the problem of peace and disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war can be solved. Let's look at the root and try to see the forest for the trees.
Global problems
Let's start with the fact that humanity has created enough difficulties for itself. This refers to those complex problems, the failure of which will lead to the disappearance of the human race along with the shining blue planet. And among them, the problem of peace and disarmament is one of the first places. Various experts number up to four dozen. Some are extremely acute, others do not yet have such a strong impact on our lives. For simplicity, they are generalized into several categories. Namely:
- environmental,
- demographic,
- energy,
- maintaining peace,
- food,
- ocean and space exploration.
Agree, each of the above groups of tasks concerns the entire population of the planet. Without food or water, clean air or energy, few will survive. Although, of course, split groups will remain, as long as the planet does not fall into pieces. Therefore, the problem of peace and disarmament is brought to the forefront by politicians and scientists. Why?
Globality of humanity
We have already said that the problem of peace and disarmament concerns every inhabitant of the Earth. The fact is that such a quantity of weapons as now has never existed before. Even at the end of the last century, when the two superpowers decided to reduce the level of tension and agree on the destruction of a certain part of their arsenals. The most dangerous weapon is considered to be nuclear. But now seven countries officially possess it. But in fact - eight or more. It is clear that not every nuclear state is capable of destroying the planet. Yes, this is not required in modern conditions. You see, there are so many “hot spots” on the planet that if a fire breaks out in one place, the fire will ignite instantly. That is, the launch of a combat missile will lead to pressing the red buttons in all nuclear states. Let's talk about this in more detail to make it clear.
Geopolitics in a nutshell
We will not delve into the differences between maritime and continental civilizations. To understand what the problem of peace and disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war is, this is not necessary. And we should consider the states of the planet from the point of view of sovereignty. Let’s assume that every power has it in its entirety. Consequently, countries are trying to solve their own problems, develop, and so on. Other people's interests are a secondary matter for them. But humanity has a history. It does not consist only of peaceful centuries and complete prosperity of nations. Everything is exactly the opposite. Our common history is full of bloody events, territorial disputes, genocide and other troubles. All this leads to the emergence of so-called stress points. Countries argue over borders or resources, and cannot forget old grievances or long-standing wars. You see, any nation can be quickly pushed towards war. That is why the problem of peace and disarmament is so acute.
The essence of the problem
But so far we have considered only one nuance of the task facing humanity. In fact, everything is much more complicated here. Yes, national interests have to be taken into account. But their historical, so to speak, roots are burdened by economic difficulties. If earlier countries could live more or less comfortably using their own resources, now this is becoming increasingly difficult. And there are examples. North Korea, closed off from the world, lives extremely poorly. She gets only crumbs from the general achievements of civilization. The population suffers from this. The problem of disarmament and world peace is not about resolving disputes or removing obstacles to the development of individual countries. The essence of the issue is to build a system in which an independent mechanism for neutralizing the causes of conflicts will operate. That is, the creation of a new society where weapons are simply not needed. Agree, the task is gigantic. Unfortunately, like a century ago, we are still at the beginning of our journey.
Why is our global society structured this way?
To understand whether there is peace and disarmament, the reasons for its occurrence must be examined carefully and comprehensively. It is believed that it was created by two superpowers: the USSR and the USA. In the last century, after the invention of the nuclear bomb, they arranged, that is, they tried to crush each other with the number of missiles and charges, the perfection of the carriers, meaning that it was not necessary to use them. Believe me, there are few crazy people in politics who are confident that permanent nuclear war is possible. However, the situation developed rapidly, ending with the creation of a completely unnecessary number of weapons of mass destruction. It will, hopefully, never be used. However, to overturn humanity into the abyss of regression, its presence is enough.
Economic aspect
Weapons are expensive things. It must be produced, tested (we are not talking about invention), and also maintained. And this means huge expenses for specialized scientific institutions, military units, factories, mining and processing enterprises. All this costs more than just money. Huge sums are spent on maintaining nuclear arsenals. Of course, some object, the work of a military-industrial complex enterprise means jobs. That is, people receive a place of duty and a salary. But does such activity benefit humanity? There are many countries in the world that produce and buy weapons. In fact, they spend invaluable resources not on development, but on death. Let's be honest: this is not progress in the civilizational sense, this is madness. However, the system does not change. There are many conflicts, therefore, the demand on the arms market is not falling. Well, that’s what the producers want. They earn money. And few people think or calculate how much bread or other useful and necessary things could be produced instead of weapons. How much happier the planet would be.
Let's digress into conspiracy theories
Analyzing how the problem of disarmament and maintaining peace can be solved, we will certainly come across a simple question: who needs this? As you explore it, you will realize that only ordinary people are interested in this. Owners of military-industrial complexes or banks have a different opinion on this matter. Conspiracy theorists have united these people with the term “global predictor.” It is believed that there is a certain “world elite” that conceptually influences processes on the planet. The war won't bother her. The fact is that there are too many people. And the trouble is not even that there is nothing to feed them, as is sometimes written in the media. The question is different. Scientists believe that just over two billion people can be controlled normally. If society becomes larger (and this has already happened), then its collective unconscious will break free from the influence of manipulators. It will be impossible to keep him under control. It will develop independently, generating and implementing ideas. Unpredictability is extremely dangerous, as the “rulers” try to instill in us through the media. Conspiracy theorists are confident that they are the ones who do not need a solution to the problem of peace and disarmament. For what? It is better to thin out humanity slightly so that it becomes more obedient.
Environmental aspect
The global problem of peace and disarmament, as already noted, is reflected throughout the planet. This is easy to notice after following the news feed for a while. Armed clashes break out in one or another point of the globe. They, of course, not only take lives. The surrounding landscape is also crumbling, becoming a lifeless desert. People leave their lands, stop cultivating and developing them. And so far we are talking only about conventional weapons. Imagine what will happen when nuclear bombs are used. In addition, resources have to be extracted at an ever faster pace, destroying the subsoil and changing the environment. But they are finite. Future generations may end up with a lifeless planet, dug up far and wide. But that's not all.
Creation of new conflict situations
There is a theatrical wisdom that says that if a gun hangs on the wall, it will definitely fire. In our case it is quite applicable. The amount of weapons circulating around the planet is such that hotheads are just waiting for an opportunity to use them. New grievances are superimposed on old problems. For example, if we consider the situation in the Middle East, everything will become clearer. After the destruction of Libya and Iraq, there is an ongoing war there. In this region, not a day goes by without casualties. People are fleeing to Europe, creating demonstrations there with cut off heads and destroyed shrines. Peoples are simply pitted against each other on purpose. Muslims with Christians, Shiites with Sunnis, Arabs with Jews. And the exit is not visible. The same thing is happening in Africa. And last year, a bleeding wound appeared in the center of Europe. There is a war going on in Ukraine.
The problem of peace and disarmament: solutions
It is unlikely that the entire complexity of the situation can be conveyed to the reader in one short article. Its roots are deep, there are many players, each of them tries to insist that they are right. What to do? Close your eyes and wait for Armageddon? Of course not. In any case, politicians who have taken responsibility for their people are not sitting idly by. We have long come to the conclusion that the problem can only be solved together. It is necessary to have an ongoing conversation about all the components of this global threat. Saving the planet is beyond the power of one country. But it is possible and necessary to find a diplomatic solution in relation to each existing one if all countries support it. That is, the paths are known. You should break the problem down into its components, not forgetting the main goal, and move forward systematically. In this case, all states, recognized or not, must participate in the process. No one has the right to ignore universal human activities to preserve our native planet.
Conclusion
Let's summarize. The problem of preserving peace is global. It concerns every inhabitant of the Earth. Its aspects are diverse. It affects the economic and social aspects of human existence. This problem has no boundaries. No one will be able to hide. However, it is completely solvable. But all countries and peoples must participate in the process. Although there is no need to talk about theory. In practice this is what happens. We see this in the news. Members of the Normandy Four negotiate in Minsk, in Vienna the six sign an agreement with Iran, and so on. All these are events of the same series. Namely, the efforts of world players to peacefully resolve conflict situations. Let's hope that the situation will continue to develop in this manner.
Wars have always been a terrible disaster. At this time, people die and become disabled, cities and villages are destroyed, monuments of art and culture disappear. The best minds of humanity puzzled over the question: how to learn to solve all problems and disputes peacefully, how to prevent war? And the more powerful and destructive weapons became, the more pressing this question sounded. Especially in our era, when a full-scale conflict using weapons of mass destruction can destroy all life on Earth.
Instructions
Suppose we are talking about states that do not possess nuclear or thermonuclear weapons. How can you prevent a war with unfriendly neighbors? It is necessary to act in the spirit of the covenant of the ancient Romans: “Si vis pacem, para bellum,” that is, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” The state needs to strengthen its defense capabilities. The paradox of this covenant is only apparent. After all, if a state has a sufficiently strong army, equipped with everything necessary, a developed industry that can be quickly redirected to the production of military products, and if its people are patriotic and ready to defend their homeland with arms in hand, then the potential aggressor will think not three, but thirty-three times , is it worth starting a war with him?
“If a big state wants to take over a small state, it will do so. But if another large state wants to capture the same small state, then the small state has a chance,” said one politician in the film “A Glass of Water.” In other words, in a difficult situation, such a state should play on the contradictions in the geopolitical interests of its large neighbors, alternately asking for protection from one or the other. At this point, diplomats, as they say, hold the cards in their hands.
Even during the era of the Cold War between two opposing blocs, when the world more than once stood on the brink of an abyss, neither the USSR nor the USA used their gigantic nuclear arsenals. Why? Because with an inevitable retaliatory strike, the side that struck first would also die. Consequently, despite the policy of détente and the awareness of the inadmissibility of such a war, it is necessary to maintain a level of defense capability that guarantees a retaliatory strike in any situation. The awareness of this has always cooled down and continues to cool down “hot heads”.
In order to prevent armed conflict, the state needs to involve all international diplomatic structures, first of all, the United Nations, in resolving controversial issues. Although, alas, sad practice shows that the role of the UN in preventing wars is more than modest.
Few people on this planet are happy about war. Unless it is people who benefit from it and who use the war to satisfy their political and, most often, economic interests. But what to do if war is brewing due to some far-fetched reasons, and no one wants to fight. Well, or almost no one.
Instructions
We need to use pacifist organizations. Demonstrations, expressions of protest, “Die-in” actions - this is not a complete list of actions that pacifists can use in the fight against imperialism and militarism.
Pacifists attract the attention of authorities and citizens, trying to convince others that wars are unnecessary to resolve interstate disputes. The authorities, of course, often ignore them, but if the pacifists manage to raise their voices against wars population, then the aggressor state will simply have no one to fight with and it will probably curtail its aggressive intentions.
The use of a nuclear shield reduces the threat to the world wars. If things have gone so far that wars between countries would be unavoidable, and pacifist organizations work worse than state propaganda, that is, a very reliable way to deter the enemy is a nuclear shield.
Currently, 9 countries officially or allegedly possess nuclear weapons. Among them are the old nuclear powers that have signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Russia, the USA, France, Great Britain, and China. There are also a number of countries that have not signed this agreement - Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea.
A war between all these countries is difficult, since possible aggression on one side will be followed by an adequate response on the other.
Use territorial or economic concessions to appease the aggressor. Of course, this is the very last thing when wars there is no way to avoid it. If the head of the country sees that his troops are obviously weaker, he can use this humiliating, for many, step, namely, give the aggressor what may be the reason wars. As a rule, this may be some kind of territory or the aggressor’s access to resources.
Few people will take such a step, especially since there were precedents in history for appeasing the aggressor, which ultimately ended in the Second World War.
Attention, TODAY only!
- What is the essence of the Cold War?
Everything interesting
The Second World War can easily be called the bloodiest and most terrible massacre not only of the 20th century, but of the entire history of mankind. It covered, to varying degrees, 62 states out of 73 that existed in those years. Confrontation between powers...
When someone is called a war hero, people immediately begin to respect him. This phrase carries courage and valor and evokes admiration. Heroes are not ordinary people, but those who perform heroic deeds. War heroes perform feats...
Pacifists are people who are against violence, wars and armed confrontations. They follow a social movement called pacifism. As a rule, these people use only peaceful methods of resisting violence, for example...
Nuclear weapons are among the deadliest means of warfare. A strong blast wave, damaging radiation and powerful fluctuations in the magnetic field make it a total destroyer of all life for several decades to come. Nuclear power...
The Cold War is a stage in the development of USSR-US relations, which is characterized as confrontation and increased hostility of countries towards each other. This is a huge period in the formation of Soviet-American relations, lasting almost 50 years. Official...
Among the various military and political conflicts of the 20th century, the Cold War stands out. It lasted more than 40 years and covered almost all corners of the globe. And to understand the history of the second half of the 20th century, it is necessary to find out what...
One of the most popular scenarios for the end of the usual civilization is the Third World War, which should lead to the death of many people, large-scale geopolitical changes and environmental disasters. However, how high is the probability of starting...
After the end of World War II, the situation in the world continued to remain tense, as a struggle immediately arose among the USA and the USSR for spheres of influence and world domination. World confrontation The term “cold war” was used for the first time...
Few people on this planet are happy about war. Unless it is people who benefit from it and who use the war to satisfy their political and, most often, economic interests. But what to do if war is brewing due to some far-fetched...
