The economics of war- an economic branch that deals with issues of the defense industry and military affairs. War economy- one of academic disciplines, which studies patterns in economic security military branch and is the main part of all military science.
Economy during the war- this is the economic activity of the country during the period of hostilities. Features - the transfer of the country's economy to "military rails", the active production of military equipment and the supply of the needs of the army, the direct impact of politics on the country's economic activity, the maximum use of natural and economic resources for military purposes.
Economy during the war, as a rule, is characterized by an increase in production in the industrial sector, on the one hand, and damage to Agriculture with another. Against the background of the employment of enterprises and people in the military sector, there is an acute shortage of various goods, including food.
The development of the economic potential is directly related to the strengthening of the military positions of the state, its ability to quickly respond to aggression and rebuild the economy to cover the needs of the armed forces at any time (both peaceful and military).
The essence of the military economy lies in the formation of a powerful defense industry on the territory of the country, the activation production capacity, determining the geographical location of defense enterprises, as well as establishing links between them for the full functioning of all "branches". The military economy is working on the development of new technologies in the field of military production, the preparation of energy resources, the development of the main spheres of the country's life (energy, agriculture, public communications, transport, and so on).
In peacetime military economy exists on a par with civil. This means that military enterprises can produce very different products - both military and domestic. For example, in the field of military support, a factory can produce military and civilian clothing and footwear.
The economics of war subject to the market, which makes it dependent on supply and demand. But along with this, military enterprises always have one big customer - the military organization system responsible for the country's defense capability.
During the war, the economies of the participating countries adapt to the current situation and are directed exclusively to cover the needs of the country's defenders. In particular, the functional structure of the economy of war can be divided into three conditional sectors:
1. Manufacture of military products.
2. Manufacture of special tools necessary for the further production of military products.
3. Making the necessary equipment for people who work in the military production sector.
This structure distinguishes the military economy from other areas. economic activity in ordinary life. During the war, the country produces almost the entire range of military products, which is used by the army, both for military operations and for peaceful purposes.
All military products can be divided into several groups:
1. Weapons for conducting combat operations, equipment for armed confrontation, as well as special military equipment. Such production is the basis for achieving victory in the war.
2. Products that are necessary for the personnel of the army and ensure their livelihoods. This includes uniforms, equipment, medicines, food, and so on. A special place is occupied by means for conducting armed confrontation. Their production requires the involvement of highly qualified people, as well as ensuring maximum production capacity.
Even in peacetime, the trend towards an increase in the range of military goods remains in force. Every strong country must be ready to attack, which stimulates the "behind the scenes" arms race. At the same time, the name of military products, the quantity and quality of manufactured equipment is constantly changing. The worst thing is that there is an active nuclear arms race, which is only gaining momentum today.
In many countries of the world, against the background of life in peaceful conditions, there is a noticeable trend towards a decrease in the number of armed forces, a reduction in budgets for military spending, and a decrease in the volume of military products produced. Particular attention is paid to the development of more technologically advanced weapons capable of more effectively resisting the enemy with minimal use of human resources.
From the very beginning of hostilities, the economic activity of the country has been directed only in a military direction. At the same time, the final result of the war largely depends on compliance with the basic laws:
1. The one who uses more modern types of weapons and military equipment wins the war. The difference in the effectiveness of weapons often plays a decisive role in the question of the winner. History has shown that, in most cases, an army with effective and more modern weapons has defeated its opponents. F. Engels came to this conclusion. He argued that the manufacturer of more effective instruments of violence wins the war. And here the main role is played by the military economy and its coherence.
2. The second law is the law of production in a surplus economy. The point is simple. In the economy of war, a certain part of the budget should be allocated to strengthening the country's defense capability. Here it is important to restructure the economy in such a way that the strengthening of defense is not at the expense of the production of military goods, that is, weapons and combat vehicles.
3. Another law is the qualitative interconnection of various sectors of the economy. Its meaning is the observance of quantitative and qualitative proportions. If the scale of production of any product increases, then similar changes should occur in other sectors. The timing of the implementation of this law may be different, but the faster the economy is rebuilt and the relationship is established, the more effective the hostilities are and the greater the chances of victory.
To achieve victory in the war, the USSR had to make truly titanic efforts, both in the sphere of the economy and in terms of human resources. Engineers, peasants, workers, designers and other specialists - all worked to solve one problem. main task. Only complete mobilization made it possible to ensure the complete and unconditional defeat of fascist Germany.
Before the start of the war, the economy of the USSR was one of the largest. First place in Europe in the extraction of "black gold", the development of new industries, the first place in the extraction of synthetic rubber, ore and manganese. At that time, the share of the USSR in the world economy ( industrial production) was almost 10%.
.jpg)
Reduced economic potential, relocation of several thousand enterprises in the eastern part of the country, great destruction in national economy and huge loss of life - all this led to a strong reduction in production in the country. By the end of 1941, the volume of GDP will almost halve. Under such conditions, the leadership of the USSR had to take tough measures to strengthen the rear and massively mobilize people. The civilian population was literally "snatched" from civilian life and sent to the front.
In 1942, mass mobilization began among the villagers. At the same time, absolutely everyone was taken - including teenagers and women. By the end of 1942, more than 60% of women were involved in agriculture. There was an acute problem of qualification of personnel. In those enterprises that were transferred, there were no more than a third of specialists and workers.
In 1941, the implementation of plans for education and training of personnel began. In a short period, almost 4.5 million people were trained. But despite these efforts, the number of people involved in production was still declining. In 1940, the factories employed about 34 million people. While in 1942 this figure dropped to the level of 18.5 million.
The main task was to fully provide the army with military equipment, uniforms, and weapons. The production of combat aircraft, tank vehicles of new types, and new ammunition has intensified. Engineers have united all efforts to provide the army with the highest quality and capable equipment. But it still wasn't enough. At the end of 1941, the needs of the fleet and army were only 70% satisfied. The main problem was the acute shortage of steel, which was needed for the production of aircraft and military equipment.
Due to the transfer of many factories, it was necessary to change the production technology at many enterprises. At the same time, the Urals assumed the leading role, where almost the entire defense sector of the country was concentrated. Due to the loss of Donbass, an acute shortage of coal appeared.
Agriculture also suffered serious damage during the Second World War. The volume of harvesting grain crops by the end of 1941 dropped sharply. The main suppliers of products were the southeastern and eastern regions of the country. In particular, the leading role was taken by Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, the Volga region and others. Already by 1942, the titanic efforts of the USSR made it possible to establish an effective war economy, where everything worked efficiently and smoothly. Already in 1943, a sharp increase in production began.
This period can be described as a turning point for state budget countries, cargo turnover in the transport sector, product areas of activity. In 1943, active rearmament of the fleet and army began, new weapons and equipment appeared. The army is provided with new images of artillery, weapons, aircraft, armor.
1944 is the culmination of the country's entire war economy. The level of heavy industry has reached unprecedented heights. At the same time, the increase in capacities was explained by the restoration of old and the construction of new plants in those areas that were liberated from Nazi Germany. Already in 1943, it was possible to significantly increase the volume of agricultural production, trade turnover was established, and capital investments increased.
One of the main roles in production began to play the eastern regions of the USSR. Production of metal was being established in the southern and central parts. In 1945, the results of steel melting almost doubled compared to 1943. The production of non-ferrous metals, steel, rolled products increased, and coal mining increased.
But, despite some successes in industry, the losses in the war were colossal - more than one and a half thousand cities were destroyed, tens of thousands of villages were destroyed, more than a thousand mines were disabled, more than three thousand plants and factories were blown up, about 65 thousand kilometers of railway tracks were destroyed. . All this not counting the huge loss of human resources
Stay up to date with all important United Traders events - subscribe to our
Expert: all major wars were and are being fought only for resources
What is the world? It's a pause between wars, historians and political scientists cynically explain. Mankind has been fighting for centuries, changing the methods of destroying its own kind, naming completely different reasons as a reason for wars, but the causes of all major wars in the world are the same - this is a battle for resources, the expert of the Masterforex-V Academy believes Evgeny Antipenko.
If we accept this concept, the logic of wars and world development becomes very simple and logical, both in understanding the past, the present and the near future. Below are the expert's explanations.
How does business rule the world, where, how and when have new wars flared up and may arise?
Under the primitive communal system, homosapiens killed each other for a convenient place for hunting or housing. Under the slave system, slaves became the main value and the main engine of the economy, and each conqueror sought to conquer a more populous country, capturing their slaves and free citizens turned into slaves. Under feudalism, wars began to be waged over lands inhabited by potential subjects, who subsequently had to pay rents in kind and money, plus (peasants) cultivate their master's land. In modern and contemporary times, with the advent of capitalist production, the goals of wars have noticeably expanded, as have their scales. Now, with the unlimited possibilities of factory production, they began to fight for resources, markets and control of trade routes. At the present time, which many call post-industrial, little has changed compared to the previous period. Despite all sorts of economic innovations (cashless payments, futures transactions, currency operations, financial empires), the main value that makes entire armies set in motion is that without which it is impossible to live, and that which tends to end sooner or later. These are resources without which the economy can stop and the well-established social way of life in the country can collapse.
Real wars for resources began in the Age of Discovery (late 15th century)
These wars continued during the formation of sea powers (at that time the term was synonymous with superpower). The first such "mistress of the seas" was Spain, which, using a monopoly on the discovery of America, began to export not only gold, but also valuable agricultural crops (potatoes, tobacco, cocoa, sugar), becoming the first monopoly in Europe in their marketing, receiving from their sales are super profits. Her example was followed by other European states, seeking to snatch a “fatter piece” on the world map. Maritime countries were especially successful in this: England, whose main trophy was North America, Portugal (a significant part of South America, including Brazil), Holland, France, Denmark, Russia, Turkey. Small European states became real superpowers and masters of the markets, because they had a powerful navy. Russia and Turkey carried out overland, but no less powerful and consistent expansion, which turned out to be just as fruitful as that of the Europeans. So, Russia strengthened itself in Transcaucasia (modern Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia), in Central Asia (modern Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan).
Wars for the redivision of the world have become a logical continuation of the process
The first redistribution of the world took place at the beginning of the 18th-19th centuries, when it became clear who and how effectively managed to manage the resources received. At that time, countries with an advanced capitalist economy based on free hired labor were able to strongly oust the feudal agrarian Spain and Portugal. In this struggle, Great Britain and France succeeded significantly, seizing vast lands on all continents:
The biggest success of Great Britain at that time was the capture of India with all its riches, the victory over the French in Canada, taking control of all significant sea trade routes (the axis of Port Moresby - Sydney - Singapore - Hong Kong - Calcutta - Aden - Cairo - Cape Town - Gibraltar ). The British, thus, closed all more or less significant sea straits, except for Panama;
Britain's biggest failure was the independence of the North American colonies (modern-day USA).
The second redistribution of the world began at the end of the nineteenth century. and ended after World War I
It is associated with the emergence of young capitalist "predators" in Germany and the United States (then the USA). Then, after the completion of the industrial revolution in Europe and North America, coal, ore, and oil acquired special value. Everyone needed the colonies, and since there were no free places in the world, they had to fight for them with their neighbors. As a result, Spain lost its last colonies altogether, the Russian and Ottoman empires collapsed, Germany, putting everything at stake, was left with nothing, and only Great Britain, France and the USA won, and on a large scale:
The United States conquered the Philippines and Cuba from decrepit Spain.
Germany acquired colonies in Southeast and Southwest Africa.
The diamond rush in South Africa led to the Boer War. It was diamonds and gold that became the driving force behind the white colonization of Canada, the West Coast of the USA, Alaska, Australia, South Africa, and Siberia. This process was accompanied by a whole series of large and small military expeditions.
In 1911, the first Lord of the Admiralty of Great Britain, Winston Churchill, made the fateful decision to switch the navy from coal to oil, which increased the speed of battleships by four knots. Since then, the Lady of the Seas has sought to countries rich in oil. Here her interests invariably clashed with Turkish and German ones. Persia was immediately divided into spheres of influence, and European corporations immediately began to pump out "black gold" from there. English companies appeared in Baku at the same time.
With the outbreak of the First World War, the struggle for oil intensified. In 1914, the British captured Iraqi Basra, taking control of oil exports. In 1916, the Germans broke through to the Romanian oil fields in Ploiesti.
During the Russian Civil War, the first thing the British did was land in Baku to control the oil.
Second World War became only an unsuccessful attempt at a new redistribution of the world by revanchist Germany and its ambitious allies - Italy and Japan
For them, as you know, everything ended extremely unsuccessfully. The real redistribution took place during the 50-60s, when the weakened Britain and France were expelled from everywhere, and a wave of sovereignties swept across the planet. Since then, wars for resources have not stopped, just now so many countries have begun to participate in them:
During the Second World War, the strategic directions of strikes, as a rule, coincided with areas rich in resources. During the Winter War, Soviet troops wanted to quickly capture the nickel-rich region of Petsamo. The Japanese sought to Manchuria with its deposits of iron ore and Indonesia with its oil. The Germans, as you know, rushed to the oil regions of the Caucasus and Mesopotamia, as well as to the Krivoy Rog-Donbass region of Ukraine, rich in nickel, manganese and coal. The USSR and Great Britain hastened to send troops to Iran in order to take control of local oil.
After the end of World War II, the main winners (the USSR and the USA) began to support the movement for the independence of the colonies in every possible way in order to deprive the resources of the weakened Great Britain and France.
- In the future, both superpowers set all kinds of local leaders and their armies on their neighbors in order to win back areas rich in certain resources. So began numerous wars in Africa (Angola, Southern Rhodesia, Libya, Chad, Congo), Latin America, the Middle East.
- The last of these military campaigns was Iraq's attack on Kuwait, followed by its annexation. Needless to say, the main goal of Saddam Hussein was the oil industry of the neighboring country.
The fourth redistribution of the world was caused precisely by this attack and it is associated with the end of the Cold War and the establishment of the hegemony of one superpower - the United States
Now the "world policeman" offered everyone to fight with him, of course, for a share of the trophies received. The tactics of action with the help of a global military coalition was tested in 1991-92, during Operation Desert Storm. Since then, a queue has been lining up for the opportunity to conquer the resources of a particular country, and woe to those who did not have time. Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya can serve as excellent examples of this approach to war.
Afghan wars of the USSR and the USA: common and shocking differences
The Americans and their allies have been in Afghanistan longer than the Soviet troops. Today marks 11 years since the soldiers of the NATO coalition invaded the mountain ranges of Afghanistan. This is even longer than the military operation that the USSR carried out in Afghanistan lasted. The Rubicon, as they say, has been crossed and it is already possible to draw some conclusions, draw comparisons and parallels, and make predictions.
When Washington in 2001 introduced its troops into the "nest of world terrorism" in Afghanistan, only the lazy in the post-Soviet space did not exercise their wits about this, skeptically assessing NATO's chances. The Western world, on the contrary, arrived in an enviable confidence that they certainly would not repeat the mistakes of the totalitarian Land of Soviets and would achieve their desired goal in the foreseeable future. In Europe and America, it was believed that all sorts of comparisons between the Afghan wars of the USA and the USSR were inappropriate in this case. However, it has now become obvious that it is not only possible but necessary to compare the situation of the 1980s and 2000s: the history of the Afghan war has provided a huge amount of material that needs to be analyzed, compared and predicted.
What do the aggressor countries of the USSR and the USA have in common with respect to Afghanistan?
Experts identify a number of patterns:
2. both states were a kind of empires, that is, carriers of a supranational ideology. The USSR fought for the triumph of communism throughout the world, the USA for the victory of democracy. The armies of these countries were international, that is, theoretically, they could not be guided in their actions by nationalist motives;
3. both in 1979-80 and in 2001 the invasion was carried out with lightning speed and almost without bloodshed;
4. military personnel of the USA and the USSR were distinguished by high morale;
5. the command of both armies declared control over the entire territory of Afghanistan;
6. The number of OKSVA in different years ranged from 80 to 104 thousand military personnel (this does not count intelligence officers, instructors and civilian specialists). About 130,000 soldiers and officers are currently operating in the ISAF troops (this does not count supposedly civilian employees of various security structures);
7. Both the USA and the USSR installed a puppet government in Afghanistan, which they financially supported, unsuccessfully trying to put many hardships of the war on its shoulders.
As you can see, the initial data for the two states participating in the war in Afghanistan are approximately comparable. In the course of the activity itself, both certain similarities and significant differences were observed.
What is the difference between the Afghan wars of the USSR and the USA?
The experts explain that:
Many disparate detachments of Mujahideen fought against the Soviet troops with a variety of political views, religious predilections (Tajiks and Uzbeks are moderate Sunnis, Pashtuns are orthodox Sunnis, residents of the province of Herat are Shiites, Ismailism is widespread among the population in Badakhshan), ethnicity. The total number of armed opposition during the Soviet occupation is estimated at 300,000 to 500,000 people;
only one Taliban movement plus a small Al-Qaeda organization is now fighting against NATO in Afghanistan. The Taliban unites predominantly Pashtuns who profess radical forms of Sunni Islam. The number of Taliban is unlikely to exceed 100,000 fighters;
In the 1980s, the Afghan Mujahideen were supported by the United States, Pakistan, China, Iran, and all Arab countries;
Now the Taliban is given covert protection only by the Pakistani secret services, a little Iran and some Arab organizations. In fact, the Taliban are forced to rely only on the people of Afghanistan, and then only on certain tribes and ethnic groups. This is clearly not enough to conduct large-scale hostilities;
The USSR, which was the leader of the Warsaw bloc, still did not draw allies into Afghanistan: Poles, Czechs, Gedeerites, Bulgarians. This made it possible to rely solely on their own strength, to ensure unity of command and not to share responsibility. Even from a human point of view, such a step looks more noble (the Eastern European allies, however, did not appreciate this, but now they have the opportunity to taste all the “charms” of the Afghan war);
The United States initiated the entry of NATO troops into Afghanistan, since all the member countries of the Alliance fully supported such a decision. Now Afghan warriors will appear in more than 20 countries, including even non-NATO Australia and New Zealand.
The results of the operation can be called twofold:
On the one hand, neither the USSR nor the USA were able to achieve their goals in Afghanistan. Socialism was not built, Bin Laden was not caught, Al-Qaeda was not destroyed, democracy was not spread, it turns out, only people were lost in vain;
On the other hand, the loss figures are largely incomparable, which gives many experts grounds to talk about NATO's clear successes and advantages. During the 1980s, more than 15,000 Soviet servicemen died or died in Afghanistan, more than 53,000 were wounded and 417 went missing. At the same time, the troops of the international coalition have lost 6,900 troops to date and over 12,500 have been wounded.
In this case, the functionaries and analysts of NATO, in the absence of real successes, have to be content with little: they are proud not of bringing peace to Afghanistan, but of the fact that they lost fewer soldiers than the USSR. Allegedly, this clearly proves the effectiveness of the North Atlantic Alliance. But the difference in losses, of course, has an explanation.
How can one explain the difference in the losses of troops in the "Afghan wars" of the USSR and the USA?
As the experts explain:
Soviet troops regularly either carried out major military operations themselves, or entrusted them to local allies, tightly controlling the execution. In any case, combat activity in the 1980s was much higher than in the 2000s. Until the last days, a limited contingent tried to carry out important strategic tasks, for example, to block the border with Pakistan, to clear the Pandsher Gorge from Afghan rebels.
NATO soldiers for the most part practice defensive tactics, they control only the capital of the country, conditionally some major cities and communication routes (only about 10-11% of the territory of Afghanistan, while the Soviet army actually held 30-35% in its hands).
Soviet soldiers often performed tasks that were unusual for them: they built, helped in economic activities, etc. There were a lot of restrictions on the use of weapons.
Twenty years later, the Americans and their allies, professing the priority of the lives of their own military personnel, massively shoot to kill at the slightest danger, almost do not go beyond their well-fortified bases and try to avoid combat clashes until significant reinforcements arrive. In fact, now only aviation and intelligence are fighting in Afghanistan, under such conditions, the loss of the coalition could be reduced to a minimum.
Soviet soldiers used local water, and as a result, the number of gastrointestinal diseases steadily increased. A significant part of the losses is due to this reason.
Americans and their allies consume only food delivered by planes from their home countries. Even water is brought to them in plastic bottles.
Thus, it is quite difficult to judge whose actions in Afghanistan are more effective. Of course, you can make forecasts, but they are also rather illusory. It is now quite obvious that
* the loss of the coalition in Afghanistan will only grow (already today the average annual figure is comparable to the Soviet one);
* Discontent in the NATO countries will also increase significantly, then the troops will be withdrawn, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan will again be engulfed in civil war, and it will finally plunge into the Middle Ages.
The question is: will the US fall apart “after Afghanistan” like the Soviet Union?
Of course not:
* The USSR collapsed not at all because of the Afghan war;
* Americans will think they won in Afghanistan. Residents of the United States never forget the main thing: to look at the world exclusively in a positive way.
Source - http://www.profi-forex.org/news/entry1008060808.html
What are they fighting for now and where can it “flare up” tomorrow?
The world is at the beginning of the so-called transition period, which has no precedents in history. Today it is already clear that development within a closed system of resources is impossible - the world is at the limit of its development:
1. Iraq, Libya. The wars there have already ended and they were fought mainly for oil, but also for gas. Now they're pumping from Iraq energetic resources mostly American (and some British) companies. While Libya is run by the French and the British. Russians and Chinese from these regions were “politely asked”, despite the fact that they used to feel quite confident there, hence the lessons of Iraq for those who want to see the future of Libya in a few years are logical.
2. Afghanistan. According to the reports of British geologists and the US Department of Defense, there are especially large reserves of lithium (the second after Canada), copper and iron. The total estimate of all these resources, according to rough estimates of experts, is more than 700 billion dollars. So, Afghanistan, contrary to popular belief, is not such a poor country.
4. Iran- Until recently, the second country in OPEC in terms of oil production. Objectively, it has colossal reserves of "black gold". The clouds around Tehran have been gathering for a long time, especially since he himself contributes to this (like the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein once did). Behind the attacks on Iran is the most powerful country in the world - the United States, whose energy needs account for more than half of the world's. It follows from this that a sovereign Islamic republic will have to try very hard to preserve its resources, and hence statehood.
5. South China Sea, which contains the disputed islands. But it is not at all because of these pieces of land that China, Japan, Taiwan and Vietnam constantly quarrel. According to preliminary geological estimates, it is there that the largest oil deposits in Southeast Asia are located.
6. Eastern Mediterranean harbors significant underwater deposits of natural gas. Explored deposits of this most valuable mineral are located in the adjacent territorial waters of Israel and Lebanon. It is for this reason that a new conflict in the Middle East may flare up.
7. Falkland Islands. British geologists recently claimed to have found oil there. And now, quite possibly, Argentina will once again recall its claims to these lands.
8. Sudan. The war between the southern and northern parts of the once united state can break out at any moment. The goal is banal: the capture of oil-rich provinces located on the border of two states that have enlisted the support of China and the United States, respectively.
9. Arctic. If warming continues at this pace, huge deposits of oil and gas will soon become available not only for research, but also for production. Now they are hidden under the thickness of ice, but very soon (with the level of development of modern technology) they can be reached. Now Russia, the USA, Canada, Norway and Denmark (the last four are NATO allies) are making their claims on significant parts of the Arctic shelf, more Battle for the Arctic: why Russia needs the largest nuclear-powered icebreaker. What will happen next - we'll see. All other reasons - political, ideological, national, religious, currency (dollar, euro, yen, pound sterling) - all this is secondary to the main reason - the struggle for resources.
The world is changing, but one thing remains the same - the battle of the superpowers for resources (oil, gas, gold, non-ferrous and rare metals), without which it is impossible to manage the world and "squeeze all the juice out of it" to obtain super profits, power and high level life in your country. Not without reason In terms of GDP, the United States is 7 times richer than Russia and 1.5 times China.
Source -Online magazine "Market Leader"
http://www.profi-forex.org/news/entry1008136210.html
Wars are different: religious, civil, cold, etc. But sometimes the instigators of military conflicts, ignoring noble goals, seek only personal gain.
The desire to provide their own economy with access to the necessary natural resources pushes states to unleash wars on completely far-fetched grounds. As the proven reserves of raw materials run out, countries have to fight for new sources, and common sense and diplomacy are not always the tools of such a struggle.
We present nine of the most famous military conflicts unleashed over resources.
Revolution in America and confrontation between Great Britain and France
vestifinance.ru
During the struggle of America for independence against the British crown in the 18th century, France provided active support to the New World. In this case, if the American people sought to free themselves from British dependence, then France with its fleet helped solely out of selfish motives, seeking to close trade routes and routes. France was interested in agricultural crops, the trade of which from America was previously controlled by London.
Battle of Plassey (India)
badnews.org.ru
The Battle of Plassey, or Palashi, was a landmark battle along the banks of the Bhagirathi River in West Bengal. On June 23, 1757, British troops inflicted a crushing defeat on the troops of the Nawab of Bengal, Siraj ud-Daula, on whose side France acted. As a result, the British took control of India's entire raw material base and trade supply routes.
American Civil War
territa.ru
Officially, the civil war in America was motivated by the struggle to free the country from slavery. However, one should not forget that it was slavery that underlay the production of cotton and most other agricultural products. The result of the civil war was a sharp shortage of cotton in Europe
Soviet-Finnish war
militarylib.com
One of the versions of the unleashing of hostilities between the Soviet Union and Finland in the first half of the 20th century was the need of the USSR for significant reserves of nickel for the needs of the defense industry. Finland meanwhile just possessed a deposit in Petsamo; By the way, one of the largest battles during the conflict, the Battle of Petsamo, is associated with the name of this particular area.
Japanese army attack on Pearl Harbor
jew-observer.com
Although the attack by the Japanese air force on the American fleet at Pearl Harbor cannot in itself be called a war, it was this event that served as the starting point for the United States to participate in World War II. However, it is unlikely that Japan sought to push the States in this way, but the goal could be the desire to completely destroy the advanced American naval forces. Thus, in Tokyo, under the patronage of Berlin, they sought to ensure control over the vast hydrocarbon reserves in Southeast Asia, as well as over ore deposits and food supplies.
The Great Patriotic War
1tv.ru
You should not try to fit the tragic years of the Second World War, and even more so the Great Patriotic War, into the framework of a simple theory of the struggle for resources. Nevertheless, the desire of fascist Germany to take control of the oil fields of Soviet Russia, significant sown areas, as well as mines and many other assets of our Motherland, should by no means be discounted.
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
shorouq.livejournal.com
In 1990 there was a military conflict, which today remains one of the most controversial in recent history. Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime invaded Kuwait, accusing the latter of stealing oil. Under a completely far-fetched pretext, Baghdad sought to seize the oil fields of a neighboring state, destroy oil industry Kuwait itself, to achieve a jump in prices for "black gold" and "with one hand" to pay off all of its huge debt accumulated during the war with Iran. Subsequently, the United States also joined the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait, whose share of interest in stable oil supplies was not in doubt.
Territorial disputes in the South China Sea
fondsk.ru
In the waters of the South China Sea, the situation is still extremely tense, and oil, as always, is the basis of disputes. The main participant in the conflict remains China, which claims its rights to the disputed islands; Japan, Taiwan and Vietnam oppose Beijing on this issue. Taking into account the claimed rights, China has no less oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, so the position of the PRC in this case is quite understandable. But how the conflict will end is unknown. Military and political experts in last years increasingly pointed to the active build-up of China's military grouping in the waters of the South China Sea.
Disputes over the Falklands
izvestia.ru
The Falkland Islands have become today another stumbling block in the dispute over oil. Argentina claims that these territories belong to it, while the UK is sure otherwise. In 2010, British industrialists began drilling a well off the coast of one of the islands, and the old conflict, which had already led to military intervention, continued with renewed vigor.
A new bloody conflict is brewing in the Middle East. This news will not be any sensation for you, as this region has long been disfigured by wars and revolutions. The history of the potential conflict is banal to disgrace - it is a struggle for resources. In 2010 the American oil company Noble Energy discovered an oil and gas field on the shelf in the Mediterranean Sea, the resources of which, as the Americans calculated, are equal to 453 billion cubic meters. At first, Lebanon and Israel, due to disputes over borders, were rather reserved about the "sharing of the fallen wealth." But everything changed in January 2017, when the Lebanese government issued a license for exploration of the field (Block 9) to the Franco-Russian company Total. Although representatives of Total said they would work at a distance of at least 25 km from the border with Israel, Defense Minister A. Lieberman called the fact of issuing a license to develop the field provocative, and the agreement of companies such as Total to start gas production on the Lebanese shelf "great mistake," since Block 9 belongs to Israel. And after the government reacted with a "smile" to his words, Lieberman began to threaten a war between Lebanon and Israel. When the intensity of passions reached the limit, the head of American diplomacy, Rex Tillerson, came to Beirut. But instead of softening the heat, he said that he blamed Hezbollah for all of Lebanon's problems. To which the leader of the movement, Hassan Nasrallah, said that if the Lebanese Defense Council decides to destroy Israeli oil installations, then Hezbollah is ready to fulfill the order. The situation is complicated by the fact that Lebanon, by inviting Total, enlisted the support of Russia, France and Iran, and Israel, in turn, turned to its big brother from North America, which is not called Canada. The developing situation could potentially lead to a new big war. In the event of the outbreak of hostilities, control over energy resources will already be the main goal, in this conflict the issue of control over the entire Middle East will be raised. The importance of the Block 9 field for Lebanon and Israel cannot be overestimated. Never before have they had such opportunities. And the government of both countries is ready to "bite" anyone for him. For example, back in September last year, the Israeli military conducted a series of exercises that simulated a clash with Hezbollah, including a simulated takeover of southern Lebanon. And the story of the transfer of the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem only added fuel to the fire. Apparently realizing that Palestine and Hamas simply do not have the ability and resources to resist Israel, so the latter found another opponent. Objectively, there is only one country that can keep the situation from exploding. The country that sent one of its largest energy companies to Lebanon and plans to conclude an interstate agreement on military cooperation with this country is Russia.
The growing global crisis has made obvious the need for a radical revision of the principles of the global world order, which were formed in the middle of the last century and do not take into account current realities. The vast majority of national elites agree with this. However, according to a number of experts, this process can go not along a peaceful, but along a military path. At the same time, the main motive, apparently, will be the struggle for resources. Despite the fact that the probability of the start of large-scale military operations in the near term is low (“World War as a way out of the global crisis”), we will try to assess the possible nature of a new world confrontation.
Readiness of prospective coalitions
For a correct forecast of the probable periodization of a future world war, it is necessary to analyze the current state of countries and their alliances that are capable of forming opposing coalitions in the future.
The leadership of the US and EU countries, according to the statements of its representatives, continues to pursue a policy aimed at establishing its dominance in the world with the imposition on other states (naturally, in a camouflaged form) of the obligation to ensure their prosperity at the expense of their resources.
The contradictions within this community are non-antagonistic in nature and, apparently, are associated with the division of spheres of influence in the new world order, which assumes the domination of Western civilization over the rest of the "uncivilized" world.
The organizational and technical level of this community allows its member countries to count on the conduct of successful first wars and armed conflicts in the world war.
Their main problems remain high sensitivity to the losses of personnel of the armed forces and the unpreparedness of the citizens of these states for war, which is determined to a large extent by the lack of an ideology of war accepted by the population, as well as limited Natural resources, territory and human potential compared to the rest of the world.
All this determines the moral and ideological unpreparedness of Western states for war and calls into question the success of their coalition in a protracted global armed conflict. This community can only count on success in a fleeting war. These countries need a blitzkrieg.
Countries that are not part of Western civilization are basically neither organizational nor technically ready for military confrontation.
At the same time, this community has an overwhelming superiority in human potential, a higher moral potential compared to the West, and control over vast natural resources and territories.
This fact significantly increases the chances of the anti-imperialist coalition to win in a protracted war and creates favorable conditions for organizing a rebuff to the aggressor at its first stages, creating a reserve of time for the consolidation of these countries that are not part of Western civilization, and for organizing international support for those states that will be the first to victims of Western aggression.
Thus, none of the possible coalitions is currently fully prepared to participate in a world war.
Start
Forecasting the periodization of any military conflict is based mainly on an assessment of the capabilities of the initial potentials of the opposing sides, the likely course of hostilities, changes in the ability of the opposing sides to wage war, and corresponding adjustments to the initial political goals in it.
An important element of such an analysis is the definition of a scenario for entering a state of war.
Today, Western states can only initiate internal armed conflicts in other countries and take part in their resolution with very limited contingents of troops, placing the main burden of the struggle on one of the warring parties allied with them.
Therefore, in a peaceful period preceding a possible large-scale war, Western civilization seeks to resolve the global crisis in its own interests, relying mainly on non-military measures. The rest of the states will act in a similar way, trying to form an international configuration that is beneficial to them.
One of the most important activities of the West at this stage is the initiation of internal conflicts in other countries in order to create conditions for their collapse, undermining the economy and military potential.
A common phenomenon, especially noticeable for the states of Western civilization, will be the growth of xenophobia, class, interethnic and interreligious struggle, which in turn will serve as a good basis for starting the processes of their fascisization.
Depending on the intensity of the development of crisis phenomena and the effectiveness of the West's attempts to achieve its goals relying only on non-military measures, the duration of this period can vary widely - from one or two to five or six years.
Given the antagonistic nature of the contradictions that gave rise to the crisis, one can assume that the non-military measures taken at this stage will not lead to the desired result.
The elite of Western civilization, realizing the impossibility of achieving the set goal peacefully, will proceed to the direct preparation of military operations for resources. Initially, its leaders will focus on limited-scale military conflicts.
A threatened period of world war will begin, during which the West will begin direct preparations for local wars and armed conflicts for resources.
By this time, the neo-imperialist coalition will have finally taken shape, which, within the framework of this initial stage, will pursue the goal of creating the ideological, moral-psychological, economic, regulatory, legal and political-diplomatic conditions for conducting successful military operations.
On the part of countries of other civilizations, the goal may be to contain the processes leading to war, to preserve the existing system international security, strengthening regional alliances with the expansion of their defense functions, building up the potential of their armed forces.
The stage will end after the readiness of the neo-imperialist coalition for limited wars is reached. Other states will not have time to create their own effective military-political organizations.
This stage will be relatively short - one or two years, which is determined by the desire of the neo-imperialist coalition to defeat potential opponents one by one, preventing the emergence of a united front of resistance.
Stages of the new world
The transition of the neo-imperialist coalition to unleashing local wars and armed conflicts against individual countries marks the beginning of the first stage of world armed confrontation - a period of limited military operations.
Within the framework of this stage, this community will pursue the goal of defeating the leaders of regional consolidation while simultaneously intimidating the rest of the states in the region.
The international security system in its modern sense will cease to exist.
The neo-imperialist coalition will wage these wars and conflicts with the use of groups of regular troops, including irregular armed formations created and supported by it.
Will mainly be used ordinary species. However, in the event of an unfavorable development of the situation for the aggressor and with a guarantee of the absence of a similar threat in response, it is possible to deliver single nuclear strikes to them in order to force the enemy to give up further resistance. To justify such strikes, provocations with limited use of chemical weapons against their own population are likely.
The duration of the first stage will be determined mainly by the rate of growth of the regional and global military-political consolidation of countries that are not members of the neo-imperialist coalition, and may range from two to three to six to seven years.
This period will end after joining the participation in limited military operations conducted against individual states, other countries of the regions and the creation of viable defensive regional alliances.
Following this, a poorly controlled escalation of a number of local wars into regional ones will begin, new limited wars and armed conflicts will arise.
This will mark the beginning of a new stage - a full-scale world war with the use of conventional weapons.
An analysis of the military potentials of the opposing sides in hostilities and the probable dynamics of the development of the military-political situation makes it possible to single out three main periods in it.
The first one is the fragmented geopolitical defense of the anti-imperialist coalition, the distinguishing feature will be the poorly coordinated globally military operations of the countries of this community due to the incompleteness of their military-political consolidation.
The neo-imperialist coalition, having superior organizational and transport infrastructure, will hold the undisputed lead at the global level. The countries of this community organize a global offensive, freely maneuvering forces to concentrate them at one time or another in the most important regions of the world.
The duration of this period will be determined by the time needed by the countries of the anti-imperialist coalition to organize coordinated actions on a global scale, which can range from two to four to six to seven years.
The next period - the geopolitical balance of the possibilities of waging war by the opposing sides - will also be quite long (three to five years) and will end with the loss of the ability of the neo-imperialist coalition to conduct large-scale offensive operations as a result of the exhaustion of human and material resources.
As a result, this community will move on to geopolitical defense and will begin to look for ways to end the war on terms acceptable to itself. The stage of the geopolitical offensive of the anti-imperialist coalition will begin, when the fall of governments in some countries of the neo-imperialist community is possible due to mass uprisings of the population caused by military hardships and losses, with the possible exit of these states from the war.
The synchronism of such events in several leading neo-imperialist countries may lead to the collapse of the coalition with the subsequent completion of large-scale hostilities with the victory of the anti-imperialist community.
At the stage of a full-scale world war with the use of conventional weapons, individual nuclear strikes can take place, mainly from the side of the neo-imperialist coalition.
In the face of the identified global adversary, regional contradictions will fade into the background and military conflicts between the countries of the anti-imperialist coalition will cease.
However, the threat of large-scale covert use of biological weapons of mass destruction by the states of the neo-imperialist coalition will increase significantly.
As this community’s ability to continue waging war decreases, the scale of military defeats and internal political tensions in its countries grow, some members of the neo-imperialist coalition withdraw from the war and the inability to achieve peace at least on minimally acceptable terms, it may resort to limited use of nuclear weapons as last resort to force the enemy to peace.
There will be a stage of limited use of weapons of mass destruction. This period will be very short - from several days to several months, which is determined by a sharp increase in the threat of a transition to full-scale use of nuclear weapons and huge losses among the personnel of the troops and the civilian population.
Its distinctive feature will be the use by the parties of nuclear weapons (mainly tactical) in the form of single and group strikes against the backdrop of ongoing hostilities with conventional weapons.
After that, the warring coalitions will be forced to negotiate and end the world war by signing an appropriate agreement on mutually acceptable terms.
However, if this does not happen, then in the face of the threat of complete defeat, the neo-imperialist coalition may go for the full-scale use of nuclear weapons.
As part of this stage, the parties will exchange blows with the main composition of their strategic nuclear forces. This will be the shortest stage and will last several days.
As a result, the leading countries of the opposing coalitions will undergo mutual destruction, and they themselves may lose unity.
The world war will disintegrate into a weakly interconnected system of local wars and armed conflicts, which will gradually fade due to the loss of the material basis for the continuation of hostilities, huge losses of military personnel and civilians, and their complete demoralization.
In this scenario, the world war will most likely end by concluding a system of separate treaties.
With the start of peace talks between coalition leaders, military operations in certain regions and directions will not stop - the parties will strive, by suspending the confrontation on a geopolitical scale, to achieve private strategic and operational successes in order to strengthen their positions in the course of settlement, creating prerequisites for achieving a favorable political configuration of the future world order in individual regions.
It can be assumed that it will not be possible to quickly reach full-fledged peace agreements that would allow a complete cessation of hostilities, and that this stage will last several years.
With the completion of negotiations and the conclusion of peace, the stage of formation of the post-war world order will begin.
This stage (judging by the scale of actions that will need to be carried out and the experience of completing previous wars) can last from three or four to seven to ten years or more.
The presented version of the periodization of a possible world war is based on the assumption that Russia's nuclear potential will remain a deterrent for the neo-imperialist coalition. If this Russian factor is neutralized, the Western community can use a preemptive strike to destroy the nuclear potential of China and other opposing countries possessing these weapons, and move on to the unlimited use of nuclear weapons, due to which it can achieve complete victory.
This can happen at any stage of the development of the world war. However, it is most likely that this will happen during the threatened period or at its first stages.
Possible outcome
The most important element in analyzing the nature of any war is to identify its possible outcomes.
The outcome of the world war will be largely determined by the fundamental resources of the opposing coalitions: spiritual, scientific, military, industrial, human, resource and territorial potential.
Evaluation of strengths and weaknesses opposing communities gives reason to believe that despite the desire of the neo-imperialist coalition to achieve the goals of the war in the course of a new blitzkrieg, the possibility of its victory in the early stages can be assessed as unlikely.
The prolongation of hostilities while maintaining the nuclear deterrence factor on the part of Russia and partly China sharply reduces the chances of a complete victory for the Western community. Under these conditions, the possibility of establishing a parity peace increases significantly. This outcome should be regarded as highly probable.
The complete defeat of the neo-imperialist coalition, given its enormous nuclear potential, can only occur if an internal social explosion occurs in the leading countries of this community, primarily in the United States. This outcome is unlikely.
There remains a relatively low possibility of the United States neutralizing or taking control of Russia's nuclear potential through a change of power or its destruction. This will allow the neo-imperialist coalition to achieve complete victory by switching to the unlimited use of nuclear weapons.
The analysis carried out allows us to conclude that a new world war, if it is nevertheless unleashed, will affect most of the world's population, covering almost all continents, oceans and seas. In terms of duration, it will be from six to seven to 25–30 years. More than a hundred million people from both sides can take part in hostilities. The total demographic losses will exceed several hundred million people.
