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

We list the main wars and military conflicts of the 20th century. Between nine and fifteen million people died during the First World War, and one of the consequences was the Spanish flu epidemic that began in 1918. It was the deadliest pandemic in history. It is believed that from twenty to fifty million people died from the disease. The Second World War claimed the lives of almost sixty million. Smaller conflicts have also brought death.

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

World War I

World War I began on July 28, 1914 and ended on November 11, 1918. Thirty-eight states participated in this military conflict of the 20th century. The main reason for the war was serious economic contradictions between the superpowers, and the formal reason for the start of full-scale actions was the assassination 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.

The 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 was 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

The end of the monarchy was put by the civil war in Russia of 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 intransigence of the positions of different political unions in matters of power, the further economic and political course of the country led to the conflict.

The civil war ended with the victory of the Bolsheviks, but brought great damage to the country. Production fell to a fifth of the level of 1913, agricultural products were produced by 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 hostilities were fought on land, in the air, and at sea, began in the year. In this military conflict of the 20th century, the armies of 61 states participated, that is, 1700 million people, and this is already 80% of the world's population. The battles were fought on the territory of forty countries. In addition, for the first time in history, the number of civilian dead exceeded the number of dead soldiers and officers, and almost twice.

After the Second World War - the main military-political conflict of the 20th century - the contradictions between the allies only worsened. The Cold War began, in which socialist the camp was virtually 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 involvement of the military contingent of China, the USA and the USSR. The prerequisites 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 has 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 of the Cold War period was 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 interfered in the affairs of Vietnam. The successful completion of the conflict made it possible in 1976 to create a single state on this territory.

Several Russian military conflicts in the 20th century were related to relations with China. In the late fifties, the Soviet-Chinese split began, and the peak of the confrontation came in 1969. Then there was a conflict on Damansky Island. The reason was the internal events in the USSR, namely the criticism of Stalin's personality and the new course towards "peaceful coexistence" with the capitalist states.

War in Afghanistan

The cause of the Afghan war was the coming to power of a leadership that was not pleasing to the party elite of the USSR. The Soviet Union could not lose Afghanistan, which threatened to withdraw from the zone of influence. Real data on losses 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 had reached 15 thousand.

Gulf War

The war was fought between the multinational forces (USA) and Iraq for the restoration of Kuwait's independence in 1990-1991. The conflict is known for the large-scale use of aviation (influencing the outcome of hostilities), high-precision ("smart") weapons, as well as the widest media coverage (for this the conflict was called the "television war"). In this war, the Soviet Union supported the United States for the first time.

Chechen wars

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

Throughout the 19th century, Russia rose to prominence on the world stage. This era is rich in international contradictions and conflicts, and our country has not remained aloof from them. The reasons are varied - from expanding borders to protecting their own territory. During the 19th century, there were 15 wars involving Russia, 3 of which ended in defeat for her. Nevertheless, the country withstood all the severe tests, strengthening its own position in Europe, as well as drawing important conclusions from defeats.

Map: Russian Empire in the first half of the 19th century

Enemies and their commanders:

Goals of the war:

• to strengthen Russia's influence in the Caucasus, Georgia and Azerbaijan;
• resist Persian and Ottoman aggression.

Battles:

Peaceful agreement:

On October 12, 1813, the Gulistan peace treaty was signed in Karabakh. Its terms:

• Russia's influence in Transcaucasia is preserved;
• Russia could maintain a navy in the Caspian;
• add. export tax to Baku and Astrakhan.

Meaning:

In general, the outcome of the Russian-Iranian war for Russia was positive: the expansion of influence in Asia and another access to the Caspian Sea gave the country tangible advantages. However, on the other hand, the acquisition of the Caucasian territories turned into a further struggle for the autonomy of the local population. In addition, the war marked the beginning of the confrontation between Russia and England, which continued for another hundred years.

Wars of anti-French coalitions 1805-1814.

Enemies and their commanders:

War of the Third Coalition 1805-1806	France, Spain, Bavaria, Italy	Austria, Russian Empire, England, Sweden
	Pierre-Charles de Villeneuve Andre Massena	Mikhail Kutuzov Horatio Nelson Archduke Karl Carl Mack
War of the Fourth Coalition 1806-1807	France, Italy, Spain, Holland, Kingdom of Naples, Confederation of the Rhine, Bavaria, Polish legions	Great Britain, Prussia, Russian Empire, Sweden, Saxony
	L. N. Davout	L. L. Benningsen Carl Wilhelm F. Brunswick Ludwig Hohenzollern
War of the Fifth Coalition 1809	France, Duchy of Warsaw, Confederation of the Rhine, Italy, Naples, Switzerland, Netherlands, Russian Empire	Austria, UK, Sicily, Sardinia
	Napoleon I	Karl Louis Habsburg
War of the Sixth Coalition 1813-1814	France, Duchy of Warsaw, Confederation of the Rhine, Italy, Naples, Switzerland, Denmark	Russian Empire, Prussia, Austria, Sweden, England, Spain and other states
	N. Sh. Oudinot L. N. Davout	M. I. Kutuzov M. B. Barclay de Tolly L. L. Benningsen

War Goals:

• liberate territories captured by Napoleon;
• to restore the former, pre-revolutionary regime in France.

Battles:

Victory of the troops of the anti-French coalitions	The defeat of the troops of the anti-French coalitions
War of the Third Coalition 1805-1806
10/21/1805 - Battle of Trafalgar, victory over the fleet of the French and Spaniards	10/19/1805 - the battle of Ulm, the defeat of the Austrian army
	12/02/1805 - the battle of Austerlitz, the defeat of the Russian-Austrian troops
On December 26, 1805, Austria concluded the Treaty of Pressburg with France, under the terms of which it renounced many of its territories and recognized the seizures of the French in Italy.
War of the Fourth Coalition 1806-1807
	10/12/1806 - the capture of Berlin by Napoleon
	10/14/1806 - the battle of Jena, the defeat of the Prussian troops by the French
1806 - Russian troops enter the war
December 24-26, 1806 - battles near Charnovo, Golymini, Pultuski did not reveal winners and losers
	February 7-8, 1807 - Battle of Preussisch-Eylau
	06/14/1807 - Battle of Friedland
On July 7, 1807, the Treaty of Tilsit was concluded between Russia and France, according to which Russia recognized the conquests of Napoleon and agreed to join the continental blockade of England. Also, a pact on military cooperation was concluded between the countries.
War of the Fifth Coalition 1809
	04/19-22/1809 - Bavarian battles: Teugen-Hausen, Abensberg, Landshut, Ekmuhl.
May 21-22, 1809 - Battle of Aspern-Essling	07/5-6/1809 - battle of Wagram
On October 14, 1809, the Schönbrunn Peace Agreement was concluded between Austria and France, according to which the former lost part of its territories and access to the Adriatic Sea, and also pledged to enter into a continental blockade of England.
War of the Sixth Coalition 1813-1814
1813 - Battle of Lützen	October 30-31, 1813 - Battle of Hanau. Austro-Bavarian army is defeated
10/16-19/1813 - the battle of Leipzig known as the Battle of the Nations	01/29/1814 - Battle of Brienne. The forces of Russia and Prussia are defeated
03/09/1814 - Battle of Laon (French north)	10-14.02.1814 - battles at Champaubert, Montmiral, Chateau-Thierry, Voshan
05/30/1814 - The Treaty of Paris, according to which the Bourbon royal dynasty was restored, and the territory of France was designated by the borders of 1792.

Meaning:

As a result of the wars of the anti-French coalitions, France returned to its former borders and to the pre-revolutionary regime. She returned most of the colonies lost in the wars. In general, the Napoleonic bourgeois empire contributed to the invasion of capitalism in the feudal order of Europe in the 19th century.

For Russia, the forced break in trade relations with England after the defeat of 1807 was a big blow. This led to a deterioration in the economic situation and a fall in the authority of the tsar.

Russo-Turkish War 1806-1812

Enemies and their commanders:

Goals of the war:

• the Black Sea straits - the Turkish Sultan closed them to Russia;
• influence in the Balkans - Turkey also claimed it.

Battles:

Russian troops victories	Defeats of Russian troops
1806 - the capture of fortresses in Moldavia and Wallachia
1807 - military operations at Obilemti
1807 - naval battles at the Dardanelles and Athos
1807 - naval battle at Arpachai
1807-1808 - truce
1810 - Battle of Batino, the expulsion of the Turks from northern Bulgaria
1811 - the successful outcome of the Ruschuk-Slobodzu military operation

Peaceful agreement:

05/16/1812 - Bucharest Peace was adopted. Its terms:

• Russia received Bessarabia, as well as the transfer of the border from the Dniester to the Prut;
• Turkey recognized Russia's interests in Transcaucasia;
• Anapa and the Danube principalities went to Turkey;
• Serbia became autonomous;
• Russia patronized Christians living in Turkey.

Meaning:

The peace of Bucharest is also generally a positive decision for the Russian Empire, despite the fact that some of the fortresses have been lost. However, now, with the increase in the border in Europe, Russian merchant ships were given greater freedom. But the main victory was that the troops were freed to conduct a military campaign against Napoleon.

Anglo-Russian War 1807-1812

Enemies and their commanders:

Goals of the war:

• Repel aggression directed at Denmark - an ally of Russia

Battles:

There were no large-scale battles in this war, but only single naval clashes:

• in June 1808 near Fr. Nargen was attacked by a Russian gunboat;
• the largest defeats for Russia ended in naval battles in the Baltic Sea in July 1808;
• on the White Sea, the British attacked the city of Kola and fishing settlements on the coast of Murmansk in May 1809.

Peaceful agreement:

On July 18, 1812, the opponents signed the Treaty of Örebrus, according to which friendly and commercial cooperation was established between them, and they also pledged to provide military support in the event of an attack on one of the countries.

Meaning:

The “strange” war without bright battles and events, which sluggishly proceeded for 5 years, was ended by the same person who provoked it - Napoleon, and the Peace of Erebro laid the foundation for the formation of the Sixth Coalition.

Russo-Swedish War 1808-1809

Enemies and their commanders:

Goals of the war:

• the capture of Finland in order to secure the northern border;
• oblige Sweden to terminate allied relations with England

Battles:

Peaceful agreement:

September 5, 1809 - Friedrichsham Peace Treaty between Russia and Sweden. According to it, the latter undertook to join the blockade of England, and Russia received Finland as a part (as an autonomous principality).

Meaning:

The interaction between the states contributed to their economic development, and the change in the status of Finland led to its integration into the economic system of Russia.

Patriotic War of 1812

Enemies and their commanders:

Goals of the war:

• drive the invaders out of the country;
• save the territory of the country;
• enhance the authority of the state.

Battles:

Peaceful agreement:

09.1814 - 06.1815 - The Congress of Vienna proclaims complete victory over Napoleon's army. Russia's military goals have been achieved, Europe is free from the aggressor.

Meaning:

The war brought casualties and economic ruin to the country, but the victory contributed to a significant increase in the authority of the state and the tsar, as well as to unite the population and increase its national self-consciousness, which led to the emergence of social movements, including the Decembrists. All this had an impact on the sphere of culture and art.

Russo-Iranian War 1826-1828

Enemies and their commanders:

Goals of the war:

• resist aggression

Battles:

Peaceful agreement:

02/22/1828 - the Turkmenchay peace was concluded, according to which Persia agreed with the terms of the Gulistan Treaty and did not claim the lost territories and undertook to pay an indemnity.

Meaning:

The accession to Russia of a part of eastern Armenia (Nakhichevan, Erivan) freed the Caucasian peoples from the threat of enslavement by eastern despots, enriched their culture and provided the population with personal and property security. No less important is the recognition of Russia's exclusive right to have a navy in the Caspian.

Russo-Turkish War 1828-1829

Enemies and their commanders:

Goals of the war:

• to assist the Greeks who rebelled against the Turks;
• get the opportunity to control the Black Sea straits;
• strengthen the position on the Balkan Peninsula.

Battles:

Peaceful agreement:

09/14/1829 - according to which territories on the eastern coast of the Black Sea departed to Russia, the Turks recognized the autonomy of Serbia, Moldavia, Wallachia, as well as the lands conquered by Russia from the Persians, and were obliged to pay indemnity.

Meaning:

Russia achieved control over the Bosphorus and Dardanelles, which at that time were of the most important military and strategic importance throughout the world.

Polish uprisings of 1830, 1863

1830 - the national liberation movement begins in Poland, but Russia prevents this and introduces troops. As a result, the uprising was suppressed, the Kingdom of Poland became part of the Russian Empire, the Polish Sejm and the army ceased to exist. The unit of administrative-territorial division becomes the province (instead of voivodeships), the Russian system of weights and measures and the monetary system are also introduced.

The uprising of 1863 was caused by the dissatisfaction of the Poles with Russian control in the territory of Poland and the Western Territory. The Polish national liberation movement is making attempts to return its state to the borders of 1772. As a result, the uprising was defeated, and the Russian authorities began to pay more attention to these territories. Thus, the peasant reform was carried out in Poland earlier and on more favorable terms than in Russia, and attempts to reorient the population were manifested in the enlightenment of the peasantry in the spirit of the Russian Orthodox tradition.

Crimean War 1853-1856

Enemies and their commanders:

Goals of the war:

• win priority in the Balkan Peninsula and the Caucasus;
• to consolidate positions on the Black Sea straits;
• to support the Balkan peoples in the struggle against the Turks.

Battles:

Peaceful agreement:

March 6, 1856 - Treaty of Paris. Russia left Kars to the Turks in exchange for Sevastopol, renounced the Danubian principalities, refused patronage to the Slavs living in the Bakany. The Black Sea was declared neutral.

Meaning:

The authority of the country has fallen. The defeat revealed the weaknesses of the country: diplomatic mistakes, the unsuitability of the high command, but most importantly, the technical backwardness due to the failure of feudalism as an economic system.

Russian-Turkish war 1877-1878

Enemies and their commanders:

Goals of the war:

• a final solution to the Eastern Question;
• restore lost influence over Turkey;
• to assist the liberation movement of the Balkan Slavic population.

Battles:

Peaceful agreement:

02/19/1878 - the conclusion of the San Stefano peace agreement. The south of Bessarabia retreated to Russia, Turkey undertook to pay an indemnity. Bulgaria was granted autonomy, Serbia, Romania and Montenegro received independence.

07/01/1878 - Congress of Berlin (due to dissatisfaction of European countries with the results of the peace treaty). The size of the indemnity decreased, Southern Bulgaria came under the rule of Turkey, Serbia and Montenegro lost part of the conquered territories.

Meaning:

The main outcome of the war was the liberation of the Balkan Slavs. Russia managed to partially restore its authority after the defeat in the Crimean War.

Numerous wars of the 19th century, of course, did not pass without a trace for Russia in economic terms, but their significance can hardly be overestimated. The Eastern Question was practically resolved, for the Russian Empire, expressed in a long confrontation with Turkey, new territories were acquired, the Balkan Slavs were liberated. The major defeat in the Crimean War, however, revealed all internal imperfections and clearly proved the need to abandon feudalism in the near future.

Map: Russian Empire in the 19th century

20th century

1. War with the Japanese Empire in 1904-1905.

2. World War I 1914-1918.

Defeat, a change in the political system, the beginning of a civil war, territorial losses, about 2 million 200 thousand people died and went missing. The population decline was approximately 5 million people. Russia's material losses amounted to approximately 100 billion US dollars in 1918 prices.

3. Civil war 1918-1922.

The establishment of the Soviet system, the return of part of the lost territories, according to approximate data, from 240 to 500 thousand people died and went missing from the Red Army, at least 175 thousand people died and went missing in the White Army, the total losses for the civilian population years of civil war amounted to about 2.5 million people. The decline in population amounted to approximately 4 million people. Material losses are estimated at approximately 25-30 billion US dollars in 1920 prices.

4. Soviet-Polish war of 1919-1921.

According to Russian researchers, about 100 thousand people died or went missing.

5. Military conflict between the USSR and the Empire of Japan in the Far East and participation in the Japanese-Mongolian war of 1938-1939.

About 15 thousand people died and went missing.

6. Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-1940.

Territorial acquisitions, about 85 thousand people died and went missing.

7. In 1923-1941, the USSR participated in the civil war in China and in the war between China and the Empire of Japan. And in 1936-1939 in the Spanish Civil War.

About 500 people died or went missing.

8. The Soviet occupation of the territories of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in 1939 under the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty (Pact) with Nazi Germany on non-aggression and the division of Eastern Europe of August 23, 1939.

The irretrievable losses of the Red Army in Western Ukraine and Western Belarus amounted to about 1,500 people. There are no data on losses in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

9. The Second World (Great Patriotic) War.

Territorial acquisitions in East Prussia (Kaliningrad region) and in the Far East as a result of the war with the Japanese Empire (part of Sakhalin Island and the Kuril Islands), total irretrievable losses in the army and among the civilian population from 20 million to 26 million people. The material losses of the USSR amounted, according to various estimates, from 2 to 3 trillion US dollars in 1945 prices.

10. Civil war in China 1946-1945.

About 1,000 military and civilian specialists, officers, sergeants and privates perished, died from wounds and diseases.

11. Korean Civil War 1950-1953.

Killed, died from wounds and diseases about 300 military personnel, mostly officers-pilots.

12. During the participation of the USSR in the Vietnam War of 1962-1974, in the military conflicts of the second half of the 20th century in Africa and the countries of Central and South America, in the Arab-Israeli wars from 1967 to 1974, in the suppression of the 1956 uprising in Hungary and 1968 in Czechoslovakia, as well as in border conflicts with China, about 3,000 people died. from among military and civilian specialists, officers, sergeants and privates.

13. War in Afghanistan 1979-1989.

About 15,000 people perished, died from wounds and diseases, went missing. from among military and civilian specialists, officers, sergeants and privates. The total costs of the USSR for the war in Afghanistan are estimated at about 70-100 billion US dollars in 1990 prices. The main result: The change of the political system and the collapse of the USSR with the withdrawal of 14 union republics from it.

Results:

Over the 20th century, the Russian Empire and the USSR took part in 5 major wars on their territory, of which World War I, Civil War and World War II can be safely attributed to mega-large ones.

The total number of losses of the Russian Empire and the USSR in wars and armed conflicts over the 20th century is estimated at approximately 30 to 35 million people, taking into account civilian losses from hunger and epidemics caused by the war.

The total cost of the material losses of the Russian Empire and the USSR is estimated at approximately 8 to 10 trillion US dollars in 2000 prices.

14. War in Chechnya 1994-2000.

There are no official exact numbers of combat and civilian losses killed, dead from wounds and diseases, and missing on both sides. The total combat losses on the Russian side are estimated at 10 thousand people. according to experts, up to 20-25 thousand, according to the estimates of the Union of Committees of Soldiers' Mothers. The total combat irretrievable losses of the Chechen rebels are estimated at between 10,000 and 15,000 people. The irretrievable losses of the civilian population of the Chechen and Russian-speaking population, including ethnic cleansing among the Russian-speaking population, are estimated at approximate figures from 1,000 according to official Russian data to 50,000 people according to unofficial data from human rights organizations. Exact material losses are not known, but there are rough estimates suggesting a total loss of at least US$20 billion in 2000 prices.

In the study of human history, much attention is paid to military losses. This theme is stained with blood and reeks of gunpowder. For us, those terrible days of severe battles are a simple date, for warriors - a day that completely turned their lives upside down. Wars in Russia in the 20th century have long turned into textbook entries, but this does not mean that they can be forgotten.

General characteristics

Today it has become fashionable to accuse Russia of all mortal sins and call it an aggressor, while other states "simply protect their interests" by invading other powers and carrying out mass bombing of residential areas in order to "protect citizens." In the 20th century, there were indeed many military conflicts in Russia, but whether the country was an aggressor still needs to be sorted out.

What can be said about the wars in Russia in the 20th century? The First World War ended in an atmosphere of mass desertion and the transformation of the old army. During the Civil War, there were many bandit groups, and the fragmentation of the fronts was a matter of course. The Great Patriotic War was characterized by the conduct of large-scale hostilities, perhaps for the first time the military faced the problem of captivity in such a broad sense. It is best to consider in detail all the wars in Russia in the 20th century in chronological order.

War with Japan

At the beginning of the century, a conflict broke out between the Russian and Japanese empires over Manchuria and Korea. After a break of several decades, the Russo-Japanese War (period 1904-1905) became the first confrontation with the use of the latest weapons.

On the one hand, Russia wanted to secure its territory in order to trade all year round. On the other hand, Japan needed new industrial and human resources for further growth. But most of all, European states and the United States contributed to the outbreak of war. They wanted to weaken their competitors in the Far East and manage on the territory of Southeast Asia on their own, so they clearly did not need the strengthening of Russia and Japan.

Japan was the first to start hostilities. The results of the battle were sad - the Pacific Fleet and the lives of 100 thousand soldiers were lost. The war ended with the signing of a peace treaty, according to which Japan received South Sakhalin and part of the Chinese Eastern Railway from Port Arthur to the city of Changchun.

World War I

The First World War was the conflict that revealed all the shortcomings and backwardness of the troops of tsarist Russia, which entered the battle without even completing rearmament. The allies in the Entente were weak, only thanks to the talent of military commanders and the heroic efforts of the soldiers, the scales began to tilt towards Russia. The battles were fought between the Triple Alliance, which included Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary, and the Entente with Russia, France and England in the composition.

The reason for the hostilities was the assassination in Sarajevo of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, which was committed by a Serbian nationalist. Thus began the conflict between Austria and Serbia. Russia joined Serbia, Germany joined Austria-Hungary.

The course of the battle

In 1915, Germany carried out a spring-summer offensive, having won back from Russia the territories conquered by it in 1914, the honor of the lands of Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states.

The battles of the First World War (1914-1918) were fought on two fronts: Western in Belgium and France, Eastern - in Russia. In the autumn of 1915, Turkey joined the Triple Alliance, which greatly complicated the position of Russia.

In response to the approaching defeat, the military generals of the Russian Empire developed a plan for a summer offensive. On the Southwestern Front, General Brusilov managed to break through the defenses and inflict serious damage on Austria-Hungary. This helped the Russian troops to advance significantly to the West and at the same time save France from defeat.

truce

On October 26, 1917, at the Second All-Russian Congress, a Decree on Peace was adopted, all the warring parties were invited to start negotiations. On October 14, Germany agreed to negotiate. A temporary truce was concluded, but Germany's demands were rejected, and its troops launched a full-scale offensive along the entire front. The signing of the second peace treaty took place on March 3, 1918, Germany's conditions became more stringent, but for the sake of peace, they had to agree.

Russia was supposed to demobilize the army, pay financial indemnity to Germany and transfer the ships of the Black Sea Fleet to her.

Civil War

When the battles of the First World War were still going on, the Civil War in Russia (1917-1922) began. The beginning of the October Revolution was marked by fighting in Petrograd. The reasons for the rebellion were sharp political, social and ethnic contradictions that escalated after the February Revolution.

The nationalization of production, the ruinous Brest peace for the country, tense relations between the peasantry and food detachments, the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly - these actions of the government, together with a strong desire to retain power, caused burning discontent.

Stages of the revolution

Mass discontent resulted in a revolution in 1917-1922. The civil war in Russia took place in 3 stages:

1. October 1917 - November 1918. The main fronts were established and formed. The Whites fought the Bolsheviks. But since this was in the midst of the First World War, neither side had an advantage.
2. November 1918 - March 1920. The turning point in the war - the Red Army gained control of the main part of the territory of Russia.
3. March 1920 - October 1922. The fighting migrated to the border areas, the Bolshevik government was no longer in danger.

The result of the Russian Civil War in the 20th century was the establishment of Bolshevik power throughout the country.

Opponents of Bolshevism

Not everyone supported the new government that emerged as a result of the Civil War. The soldiers of the "White Guard" found refuge in Fergana, Khorezm and Samarkand. At that time, the military-political and / or religious movement in Central Asia was called Basmachi. The White Guards were looking for disgruntled Basmachi and incited them to resist the Soviet Army. The struggle against Basmachism (1922-1931) lasted almost 10 years.

Here and there pockets of resistance appeared, and it was difficult for the young Soviet Army to put down the uprisings once and for all.

USSR and China

During the time of Tsarist Russia, the Chinese Eastern Railway was an important strategic object. Thanks to the CER, wild territories could develop, moreover, Russia and the Celestial Empire divided the income from the railway in half, as they managed it jointly.

In 1929, the Chinese government noticed that the USSR had lost its former military power, and in general, due to constant conflicts, the country was weakened. Therefore, it was decided to take away from the Soviet Union its part of the CER and the territories adjacent to it. Thus began the Soviet-Chinese military conflict in 1929.

However, this idea was not crowned with success. Despite the numerical advantage of the troops (5 times), the Chinese were defeated in Manchuria and near Harbin.

The little-known war of 1939

These events not covered in the history books are also called the Soviet-Japanese war. The fighting near the Khalkin-Gol River in 1939 continued from spring to autumn.

In the spring, numerous Japanese troops set foot on Mongolian territory to mark a new border between Mongolia and Manchukuo, which would run along the Khalkhin Gol River. At this time, Soviet troops came to the aid of friendly Mongolia.

Futile attempts

The combined army of Russia and Mongolia gave a powerful rebuff to Japan, and in May the Japanese troops were forced to retreat to the territory of China, but did not give up. The next blow from the Land of the Rising Sun was more thoughtful: the number of soldiers increased to 40 thousand, heavy equipment, aircraft and guns were brought to the borders. The new military formation was three times larger than the Soviet-Mongolian troops, but after three days of bloodshed, the Japanese troops were again forced to retreat.

Another offensive took place in August. By that time, the Soviet Army had also strengthened and unleashed all its military might on the Japanese. Half of September, the Japanese invaders tried to take revenge, but the outcome of the battle was obvious - the USSR won this conflict.

winter war

On November 30, 1939, a war broke out between the USSR and Finland, the purpose of which was to secure Leningrad by moving the northwestern border. After the USSR signed a non-aggression pact with Germany, the latter started a war with Poland, and relations in Finland began to heat up. The pact assumed the expansion of the influence of the USSR on Finland. The government of the Soviet Union understood that Leningrad, which was located 30 kilometers from the border with Finland, could fall under artillery fire, and therefore it was decided to move the border to the north.

The Soviet side first tried to negotiate peacefully by offering Finland the lands of Karelia, but the country's government did not want to negotiate.

As the first stage of the battle showed, the Soviet Army was weak, the leadership saw its real combat power. Starting the war, the government of the USSR naively believed that it had a strong army at its disposal, but this was not so. During the war, many personnel and organizational changes were carried out, thanks to which the course of the war also changed. It also made it possible to prepare a combat-ready army for the Second World War.

Echoes of World War II

1941-1945 is a battle between Germany and the USSR within the boundaries of World War II. The battle ended with the victory of the Soviet Union over fascism and put an end to World War II.

After Germany lost the First World War, its economic and political situation was very unstable. When Hitler came to power, the country managed to build up military power. The Fuhrer did not want to admit and wanted to take revenge.

But the unexpected attack on the USSR did not give the desired result - the Soviet Army turned out to be better equipped than Hitler expected. The campaign, which was designed for several months, stretched out for several years and lasted from June 22, 1941 to May 9, 1945.

After the end of the Great Patriotic War, the USSR did not conduct active military operations for 11 years. Later there was (1969), fighting in Algeria (1962-1964), Afghanistan (1979-1989) and the Chechen wars (already in Russia, 1994-1996, 1999-2009). And only one question remains unresolved: were these ridiculous battles worth the human cost? It is hard to believe that people in the civilized world have not learned to negotiate and compromise.

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

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

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

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

In the post-war period, as never 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 sufficient resources to protect the state and their military power interests.

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, into which the United States and its allies were drawn into the orbit, to strengthen own political, ideological and military influence in vast regions of the world.

It was during the years of 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 system of coordinates) was entirely assigned to the aggressive nature of imperialism, and our interest in their course and outcome was carefully masked by declarations of disinterested assistance to peoples fighting for their independence and self-determination.

So, at the heart of the emergence of the most common military conflicts unleashed after the Second World War, lies the economic rivalry of states in the international arena. Most of the 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 force. However, sometimes crises were caused by the claims of individual states to the role of "regional centers of power."

A special kind of military-political crises should include 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, it is the economic factor that has to be named as their root cause, and the ethnic or religious factor is only a pretext.

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

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 World War II. In turn, the crisis caused by the collapse of the world system of socialism and the weakening of the 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 XX century pose a real danger of the possibility of a third world war. And it will be local-focal, permanent, asymmetric, networked and, as the military says, non-contact.

As for the first sign of the third world war as locally focal, this means a long chain of local armed conflicts and local wars that will be throughout the solution of the main task - the possession of the world. The common feature of these local wars, separated from each other at a certain time interval, will be that they will all be subordinated to one single goal - the possession of the world.

Speaking about the specifics of the armed conflicts of the 1990s. - the beginning of the 21st century, one can speak among others about their next fundamental moment.

All conflicts developed in a relatively limited area within the same theater of operations, but with the use of forces and means deployed outside it. However, local in essence, the conflicts were accompanied by great bitterness and in some cases resulted in the complete destruction of the state system (if any) of one of the participants in the conflict. The following table presents the main local conflicts of recent decades.

Table No. 1

	Country, year.	Features of the armed struggle, number of deaths, people	results armed struggle
		The armed struggle was of an air, land and sea character. Carrying out air operations, extensive use of cruise missiles. Naval missile battle. Military operations with the use of the latest weapons. coalition character.	The Israeli Armed Forces completely defeated the Egyptian-Syrian troops and carried out the seizure of territory.
	Argentina;	The armed struggle was mainly of a sea and land character. The use of amphibious assaults. widespread use of indirect, non-contact and other (including non-traditional) forms and methods of action, long-range fire and electronic destruction. Active information confrontation, disorientation of public opinion in individual states and the world community as a whole. 800	With the political support of the United States, Great Britain carried out a naval blockade of the territory
		The armed struggle was mainly of an air nature, the command and control of troops was carried out mainly through space. The high influence of information confrontation in military operations. Coalition character, disorientation of public opinion in individual states and the world community as a whole.	The complete defeat of the grouping of Iraqi troops in Kuwait.
	India - Pakistan;	The armed struggle was mainly ground-based. Maneuvering actions of troops (forces) in disparate directions with the wide use of airmobile forces, landing forces and special forces.	The defeat of the main forces of the opposing sides. Military goals have not been achieved.
	Yugoslavia;	The armed struggle was mainly of an air nature, the command and control of troops was carried out through space. The high influence of information confrontation in military operations. Widespread use of indirect, non-contact and other (including non-traditional) forms and methods of action, long-range fire and electronic destruction; active information confrontation, disorientation of public opinion in individual states and the world community as a whole. The desire to disorganize the system of state and military administration; the use of the latest highly efficient (including those based on new physical principles) weapons systems and military equipment. Increasing role of space intelligence.	The defeat of the Yugoslav troops, the complete disorganization of the military and state administration.
	Afghanistan;	The armed struggle was ground and air in nature with the extensive use of special operations forces. The high influence of information confrontation in military operations. coalition character. Troops were controlled mainly through space. Increasing role of space intelligence.	The main forces of the Taliban have been destroyed.
		The armed struggle was mainly of an air-ground nature, the command and control of troops was carried out through space. The high influence of information confrontation in military operations. coalition character. Increasing role of space intelligence. Widespread use of indirect, non-contact and other (including non-traditional) forms and methods of action, long-range fire and electronic destruction; active information confrontation, disorientation of public opinion in individual states and the world community as a whole; maneuvering operations of troops (forces) in disparate directions with the wide use of airmobile forces, landing forces and special forces.	Complete defeat of the Iraqi Armed Forces. Change of political power.

After the Second World War, due to 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 the 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 background of the most acute confrontation between two opposing socio-political systems and military-political blocs of unprecedented power - NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Therefore, local armed clashes of that time were considered mainly as an integral part of the global struggle for the spheres of influence of the two protagonists - the USA and the USSR.

With the collapse of the bipolar model of the world order, 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 “has ceased to be the axis around which the main events of world history and politics have unfolded for more than four decades,” which, although it opened up wide opportunities for peaceful cooperation, but also led to the emergence of new challenges and threats.

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

Therefore, while the number of interstate and interregional wars and military conflicts (especially those provoked by "ideological opponents") began to decline, the number of intrastate confrontations, caused primarily by ethno-confessional, ethno-territorial and ethno-political reasons, has sharply increased. Conflicts between numerous armed groups within states and disintegrating power structures have become much more frequent. Thus, at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century, the most widespread form of military confrontation was an internal (intrastate), local in scope, limited armed conflict.

These problems manifested themselves with particular acuteness in the former socialist states with a federal system, as well as in a number of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Thus, the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia led to the emergence of more than 10 ethno-political conflicts in 1989-1992 alone, and more than 25 “small wars” and armed clashes broke out in the global “South” around the same time. Moreover, most of them were characterized by unprecedented intensity, accompanied by mass migration of the civilian population, which posed a threat of destabilization of entire regions and necessitated 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 had again increased significantly. 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 out of 31 armed conflicts, participating States resorted to the use of regular armed forces. The Carnegie Commission on the Prevention of Deadly Conflict estimates that in the 1990s, the seven biggest wars and armed confrontations alone cost the international community $199 billion (excluding the costs of the countries directly involved in them).

Moreover, a radical shift in the development of international relations, significant changes in the field of geopolitics and geostrategy, the asymmetry that has arisen along the North-South line have greatly exacerbated the old problems and provoked new ones (international terrorism and organized crime, drug trafficking, smuggling of weapons and military equipment, the 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 extends to Eastern and Southeastern Europe, Transcaucasia, Southeast and Central Asia. At the same time, with a sufficient degree of confidence, it can be assumed that such a situation is not short-term and transient.

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

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

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

The armed forces reaffirm their central role in the implementation of security operations. The real combat role of the paramilitary, paramilitary formations, militias, units of the internal security forces turns out to be significantly less than it was assumed before the outbreak of armed conflicts. They were unable to conduct active combat operations against the regular army (Iraq).

The decisive moment for achieving military-political success is the seizure of the strategic initiative in the course of an armed conflict. Passive conduct of combat operations, counting on "exhaling" the offensive impulse of the enemy, will lead to the loss of controllability of one's own grouping and, subsequently, to the loss of the conflict.

A feature of the armed struggle of the future will be that in the course of the war, not only military facilities and troops will be under the blows of the enemy, but at the same time the country's economy with all its infrastructure, civilian population and territory. Despite the development of the accuracy of means of destruction, all the recent armed conflicts studied were, to one degree or another, humanitarianly “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 solution of political tasks in an armed conflict is of primary importance, while military-political and operational-tactical tasks are predominantly of an auxiliary nature. In none of the conflicts considered, the victorious side was 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 unstable states). An analysis of the trends in the development of the geopolitical and geostrategic situation in the world at the current stage makes it possible to assess it as a crisis-unstable one. Therefore, it is quite obvious that all armed conflicts, regardless of their degree of intensity and localization, require a speedy settlement, and ideally, a complete resolution. One of the time-tested ways to prevent, control and resolve such "small" wars are various forms of peacekeeping.

In connection with 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 possibility that appeared with the end of the Cold War to initiate peace enforcement operations, the UN, as time has shown, does not have the potential (military, logistical, financial, organizational and technical) necessary for their implementation. 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 to forced PKO, and the UN was unable to do it on its own.

That is why, in the 1990s, a trend was outlined, and later developed, of the UN delegating its powers in the field of forceful 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 an opportunity to flexibly and comprehensively influence the conflict with a view to its settlement 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 the psychological attitudes in relation to the conflict. This means that peacekeepers and representatives of the world community should, as far as possible, "break" and change the stereotypes of relations between the parties to the conflict, which are expressed in extreme hostility, intolerance, vindictiveness and intransigence.

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