It is unlikely that the sixteen-year-old Winston Churchill, the thirty-two-year-old ruling Russian Emperor Nicholas II, eighteen-year-old Franklin Roosevelt, eleven-year-old Adolf Hitler or twenty-two-year-old Joseph Stalin (at that time still Dzhugashvili) knew at the time the world entered the new century that this century was destined to become the bloodiest in the history of mankind. But not only these individuals became the main figures involved in the largest military conflicts.

Let us list the main wars and military conflicts of the 20th century. During the First World War, between nine and fifteen million people died, and one of the consequences was the Spanish Flu epidemic, which began in 1918. It was the deadliest pandemic in history. It is believed that between twenty and fifty million people died from the disease. The Second World War claimed the lives of almost sixty million. Conflicts on a smaller scale also brought death.

In total, in the twentieth century, sixteen conflicts were recorded in which more than one million people died, six conflicts with the number of victims ranging from half a million to a million, and fourteen military clashes in which between 250 thousand and half a million people died. Thus, between 160 and 200 million died as a result of organized violence. In fact, the military conflicts of the 20th century killed one out of every 22 people on the planet.

World War I

The First World War began on July twenty-eighth, 1914, and ended on November eleventh, 1918. Thirty-eight states participated in this 20th century military conflict. The main cause of the war was serious economic contradictions between the superpowers, and the formal reason for the start of full-scale action was the murder of the heir to the Austrian throne, Franz Ferdinand, by the Serbian terrorist Gavrilo Princip. This caused a conflict between Austria and Serbia. Germany also entered the war, supporting Austria.

Military conflict had a significant impact on the history of the twentieth century. It was this war that determined the end of the old world order established after the Napoleonic campaign. It is especially important that the outcome of the conflict became an important factor in the outbreak of the next world war. Many countries were dissatisfied with the new rules of the world order and had territorial claims against their neighbors.

Russian Civil War

Put an end to the monarchy Civil War in Russia 1917-1922. The military conflict of the 20th century arose against the backdrop of a struggle for full power between representatives of various classes, groups and social strata of the former Russian Empire. The conflict was led to by the irreconcilability of the positions of different political unions on issues of power and the further economic and political course of the country.

The civil war ended in victory for the Bolsheviks, but brought enormous damage to the country. Production fell by a fifth from the 1913 level, and agricultural products were produced in half. All state formations that arose after the collapse of the empire were liquidated. The Bolshevik Party established the dictatorship of the proletariat.

The Second World War

In history, the first during which fighting were carried out on land, in the air, and at sea, the year began. This military conflict of the 20th century involved the armies of 61 states, that is, 1,700 million people, and this is as much as 80% of the world's population. The battles took place on the territory of forty countries. In addition, for the first time in history, the number of civilian deaths exceeded the number dead soldiers and officers, almost twice as much.

After World War II - the main military-political conflict of the 20th century - the contradictions between the allies only worsened. The Cold War began, in which social the camp was actually defeated. One of the most important consequences of the war was the Nuremberg Trials, during which the actions of war criminals were condemned.

Korean War

This 20th century military conflict lasted from 1950-1953 between South and North Korea. The battles were fought with the participation of military contingents from China, the USA and the USSR. The preconditions for this conflict were laid back in 1945, when Soviet and American military formations appeared on the territory of the country occupied by Japan. This confrontation created a model of local war, in which superpowers fight on the territory of a third state without the use of nuclear weapons. As a result, 80% of the transport and industrial infrastructure of both parts of the peninsula was destroyed, and Korea was divided into two zones of influence.

Vietnam War

The most important event The period of the Cold War became the military conflict of the second half of the 20th century in Vietnam. The bombing of North Vietnam by US air forces began on March 2, 1964. The armed struggle lasted more than fourteen years, eight of which the United States intervened in the affairs of Vietnam. The successful completion of the conflict made it possible to create in this territory in 1976 single state.

Several of Russia's military conflicts in the 20th century involved relations with China. At the end of the fifties, the Soviet-Chinese split began, and the peak of the confrontation occurred in 1969. Then a conflict occurred on Damansky Island. The reason was internal events in the USSR, namely criticism of Stalin’s personality and a new course towards “peaceful coexistence” with capitalist states.

War in Afghanistan

Reason Afghan war was the coming to power of a leadership that was not pleasing to the party leadership of the USSR. The Soviet Union could not lose Afghanistan, which was threatening to leave its zone of influence. Real data on casualties in the conflict (1979-1989) became available to the general public only in 1989. The Pravda newspaper published that the losses amounted to almost 14 thousand people, and by the end of the twentieth century this figure reached 15 thousand.

Gulf War

The war was fought between a multinational force (US) and Iraq to restore Kuwait's independence in 1990-1991. The conflict is known for the large-scale use of aviation (in terms of its influence on the outcome of hostilities), high-precision (“smart”) weapons, as well as the widest coverage in the media (for this reason the conflict was called a “television war”). In this war, the Soviet Union supported the United States for the first time.

Chechen wars

The Chechen war cannot be called over yet. In 1991, dual power was established in Chechnya. This situation could not last long, so as expected, a revolution began. The situation was aggravated by the collapse of a huge country, which until recently seemed to Soviet citizens a bastion of calm and confidence in tomorrow. Now the whole system was falling apart before our eyes. The first Chechen war lasted from 1994 to 1996, the second took place from 1999 to 2009. So this is a military conflict of the 20-21st century.

Reference tables contain all the main wars of Russia from the 10th to the 21st centuries (campaigns, battles) a brief description of- periods, dates, participants, opponents, allies, goals, main battles, commanders, peace agreements and results of these wars.

Table of the Russian war from the 10th to the 17th century briefly

Table of the Russian war of the first half of the 18th century

Table of the Russian war of the second half of the 18th century

Table of Russian wars of the 19th - early 20th centuries

Source of information: History in tables and diagrams./ Edition 2e, St. Petersburg: 2013.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table No. 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Korean War (1950 - 1953)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 million tons of bombs and shells were dropped on Vietnam, which is equivalent to the power of more than 700 atomic bombs like the one that destroyed Hiroshima.

US spending on the war reached $146 billion.

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

Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)

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

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

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

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

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

War in Afghanistan (1979-1989)

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

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

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

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

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

The war lasted 10 years.

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

Gulf War (1990-1991)

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

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

Features of military art in local wars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The content, tasks and methods of electronic warfare (EW) have expanded significantly. The main method of electronic suppression is the concentrated and massive use of electronic warfare forces and means in a chosen direction. In the war in the Middle East, automatic troop control systems were tested, as well as one system communications, including through artificial satellites land.

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