The most controversial conflicts of the 21st century. Drobot E.V., Kudaikin E.I. International (regional) conflicts in the XXI century

characteristic feature all major wars In the 20th century, they reflected the contradictions exclusively within the Western (European) civilization and the global scale, in which almost all major industrial powers participated in wars. Today the situation has changed, and in the 21st century, the "military-political" beginning of which was marked by a terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, speech goes already about inter-civilizational wars and about the clash of Western civilization with its irreconcilable enemies, who reject all its values and achievements. Polit.ru publishes an article Dmitry Trenin"Wars of the 21st century", in which the author gives a forecast regarding possible conflicts in the 21st century, both nuclear and conventional. At the same time, the author points to two trends that already determine the main content of the military problem: threats emanating from extremist Islamists and attempts by some regimes in the Near and Middle East to gain access to nuclear weapons. Article published in latest issue magazine "Domestic Notes" (2005. No. 5).

Each era in military history humanity has its own technological and political specifics. The wars of the 20th century were armed conflicts on a global scale. Almost all major industrial powers participated in these conflicts. It is equally important that both world wars and the forty-year cold war reflected the contradictions within Western (European) civilization, which, along with the "mainstream" - liberalism and democracy - gave birth to such extremes as fascism and communism. Even Japanese militarism and the Japanese state itself were designed according to Western patterns. In the 20th century, the wars waged by the countries of the West divided into two factions against non-Western adversaries were perceived as secondary. So, the beginning of World War II is officially considered the German attack on Poland, and not the Japanese invasion of China. Countries that did not belong to European civilization were predominantly politically underdeveloped, technically backward and militarily weak. Since the second half of the 20th century, Western countries began to suffer defeats in remote regions (Suez, Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan), but the third world as a whole, although it turned into the main field of "free hunting" of the superpowers, remained a military-political periphery.

The twentieth century opened with a war between the "pillars" of the then world order, and ended with a series of ethnic conflicts that erupted as a result of the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia. The beginning of the "military-political" XXI century was marked by the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. The new century began under the sign of the globalization of all spheres of life, including the sphere of security. A zone of stable peace, which includes North America, country European Union and NATO, Japan, Australia, most Latin America, Russia, China, India, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, South Africa and some other countries has expanded. But it is increasingly affected by the zone of security deficit (the Near and Middle East, middle Asia, most of Africa and Southeast Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans); this zone is now even less stable. The wars of the 21st century (in any case, its first quarter) are intercivilizational wars. It's about about the clash of Western civilization with its irreconcilable enemies, who reject all its values and achievements. The United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia in the North Caucasus (and in the future, it is possible - in Central Asia), Israel, in its confrontation with the Palestinian extremists, is waging war against an adversary that does not rely on the state, does not have a certain territory and population, and which thinks and acts differently than modern states. The era of asymmetric wars has begun. Civil War within Muslim societies is a specific part of these wars.

In the first quarter of the 21st century, the main cause of wars and conflicts in the world is still the contradictions generated by the modernization of the countries of the Near and Middle East. The activities of Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Islamic Movement of Turkestan, etc., are primarily a reaction to the growing involvement of the Near and Middle East in global processes. Recognizing the general backwardness of the Arab-Muslim world, its economic uncompetitiveness and, at the same time, the dependence of the West on Middle Eastern oil, the reactionaries seek to discredit the ruling regimes of the countries of the region, declaring them accomplices of the West, overthrow them under Islamist slogans and, having seized power, establish new order(caliphate). Along with the threat posed by extremist Islamists, there are also attempts by some regimes in the region to gain access to nuclear weapons. These two political trends determine the main content of the problem of military security in today's world and in the foreseeable future (the next 15-20 years).

Below are expert assessments of the likelihood of military conflicts, both nuclear and with the use of only conventional weapons. Our forecast is limited to the first quarter of the 21st century.

Nuclear conflicts

A large-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia is no longer possible. After the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, nuclear weapons were no longer seen as a means of achieving victory in war. Since then, Moscow and Washington have been practicing a policy of nuclear deterrence based on the principle of mutually assured destruction. After the political and ideological basis of the global confrontation disappeared in the early 1990s, Russian-American deterrence became more technical problem. Having overcome outright antagonism, Russia and the United States have not become either allies or even full-fledged partners. Moscow and Washington still do not trust each other, the rivalry has weakened, but has not stopped. The United States believes that the main problem of the Russian missile and nuclear potential - its safety, i.e. technical serviceability and exclusion of unauthorized access to the "launch button". From the point of view of the Russian Federation, nuclear weapons are a "status symbol" that allows Russian leadership claim to be a great power. In the conditions when international influence Russia has significantly decreased, and the feeling of vulnerability has increased dramatically, it plays the role of "psychological support".

There is no ideological component in Sino-American relations, and geopolitical rivalry is limited. At the same time, there is a huge, constantly growing economic interdependence. A cold war between China and the US is by no means inevitable. At one time, the Chinese leadership, unlike the Soviet one, did not take the path of a sharp increase in nuclear potential, did not begin to compete with America in the nuclear missile arms race. Now the PRC is still implementing the strategy of "minimum nuclear deterrence" of the United States. Apparently, China and the United States tend to avoid aggravating relations that could provoke nuclear conflict. In the next two decades, the likelihood of such a conflict is very small, even despite the Taiwan problem, which both Washington and Beijing do not let out and will not let out of sight.

Since both large neighboring states, Russia and China, possess nuclear weapons, mutual nuclear deterrence is inevitable. From the point of view of the Russian Federation, nuclear weapons are the only effective military tool in the policy of containing China. However, at the present time one can hardly expect a serious political crisis threatening an armed clash between the Russian Federation and the PRC.

From Moscow's relations with London and Paris, the "nuclear aspect" has completely disappeared. As for the prospect of creating a unified nuclear armed forces of the European Union, we can safely say that this will not happen in the first quarter of the 21st century.

In conditions of "creeping" distribution nuclear weapons increasing the likelihood of limited nuclear wars. The emergence of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan in 1998 marked the possibility of such a war in Hindustan. It is possible, however, that the Kargil incident that followed, the first armed conflict in history between states possessing nuclear weapons, played approximately the same role in Indo-Pakistani relations as the Caribbean Crisis in the Soviet-American confrontation. IN military policy Delhi and Islamabad are forming elements of mutual deterrence. IN last years, according to experts, real threat represents not so much the nuclear weapons of both countries as the possibility of an acute internal political crisis in Pakistan, the collapse of statehood and the seizure of nuclear weapons by Islamist extremists.

If North Korea possesses several nuclear weapons, the Korean Peninsula is also a potential theater nuclear war. However, an analysis of Pyongyang's policy shows that the North Korean leadership is using nuclear weapons as a guarantee of maintaining the existing regime and as an instrument of economic blackmail against the United States, South Korea and Japan. The nuclear problem will appear in a completely different form in the event of the unification of Korea. Seoul, having inherited Pyongyang's nuclear developments, may want to keep them. Tokyo's reaction is easily predictable: Japan will decide to acquire its own nuclear weapons. This will be followed by a corresponding response from Beijing, intervention by Washington, etc. - with an unclear end result.

Israel has long resorted to nuclear deterrence against its Arab neighbors, whose policies threaten the very existence of the Jewish state. The peace process in the Middle East, which began shortly after the end of the 1973 war, led to the establishment of stable Israeli relations with Egypt and Jordan. However, the full normalization of Israel's relations with the Arab world- a matter of the distant future, and until then the nuclear factor retains its significance in Israeli-Arab relations.

If Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, the consequences could be manifold: it could be a preventive war by the United States and (or) Israel against Iran, and further proliferation of nuclear weapons (possible candidates: Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria), and formalizing the mutual deterrence of the United States in alliance with Israel, on the one hand, and Iran, on the other. Any of these scenarios poses a serious risk to regional and global security. Obviously, there is a need for international control over Tehran's nuclear program and Iran's reintegration into global community. There is no other way to solve the Iranian nuclear problem.

The development of science and technology has made possible and justified from a military point of view "point" nuclear strikes. The admissibility of the preventive use of nuclear weapons to destroy terrorist bases and fortified facilities on the territory of states seeking to acquire nuclear weapons is an important innovation of the American military doctrine. In principle, the military-political leadership of Russia can follow the same path. It is clear, however, that even such surgical intervention” will have huge political consequences, as it will remove the taboo on the combat use of nuclear weapons.

In the meantime, the use of nuclear weapons is becoming more and more likely (or, more likely, nuclear materials) terrorists. The objects of their attacks may be the United States, Russia, Israel, European countries, Australia and many other states. The danger of terrorists using other types of weapons is also great. mass destruction primarily biological.

So, we have to conclude that the possible scale of conflicts with the use of nuclear weapons has sharply decreased, but the likelihood of their occurrence has increased significantly.

Conventional conflicts

A large-scale conventional war (“World War III”), which was feared and prepared for during the Cold War, is almost unbelievable today. Although relations between NATO and Russia did not turn into an allied one (“alliance with an alliance”, according to well-known formula former ambassador USA in Moscow A. Vershbow), both sides are gradually dismantling the infrastructure of half a century of confrontation. Relations of the Russian Federation with leading European countries NATO can already be considered demilitarized today: a war between Russia and Germany is as unthinkable as a war between Germany and France. As regards Poland and the Baltic States, although it is now hardly possible to speak of Russia's friendship with these countries, the application military force is practically excluded. The final guarantee of "eternal peace" between Russia and its Western neighbors may paradoxically be Ukraine's entry into NATO: an armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine supported by the West is impossible. In the East, Russia's relations with Japan and South Korea, US allies in the Cold War, can be compared with Russian-German or Russian-Italian.

Unlikely and regional wars. The nature of the interaction of any pair of large states can be conditionally called peaceful and relatively stable. Russian-Chinese and Chinese-Indian relations are characterized by a long-term trend towards strengthening partnership. Shanghai Organization cooperation (SCO) and the Treaty Organization collective security(CSTO) generally contribute to strengthening peace in the region, primarily in Central Asia. The Russian-Indian partnership is strategically unproblematic - an almost unique case for large states that are not formally allies. Sino-Japanese relations are on a downward trend, but are held back by strong economic interdependence.

Two situations pose a real threat: on the Korean Peninsula, where the world's highest level of military confrontation has been reached, and in the Taiwan Strait. Both potential conflicts, having begun as local ones, can quickly reach the regional level in the event of US intervention. On the other hand, both the US and China are interested in preventing a sharp aggravation of the situation and keeping it under control.

The likelihood of a war in the Middle East between Israel and the Arab countries is gradually decreasing. The solution of the Palestinian problem can create conditions for the gradual (over several decades) transformation of the Eastern Mediterranean into a zone conditional world. At the same time, serious factors of uncertainty are the development of the domestic political situation in Egypt (especially after President H. Mubarak left the political arena) and in the Palestinian Authority.

The conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir is largely contained by the nuclear standoff. But if radicals come to power in Pakistan, the search for ways to resolve the Indo-Pakistani problem may be interrupted.

The most widespread conflicts in the XXI century, apparently, will be local wars generated by interethnic contradictions. For Russia, the resumption of the Armenian-Azerbaijani war would be especially dangerous. The armed struggle for Nagorno-Karabakh will have the character of both a traditional interstate and interethnic clash. Regional destabilization is also threatened by the “frozen” ethnic conflicts in Transcaucasia (Abkhazia, South Ossetia) and in the Balkans (Kosovo, the “Albanian issue” in Macedonia, etc.), unless they can be resolved. In the Middle East, an international "earthquake" may cause the actualization of the Kurdish issue. However, experts predict that Africa will become the main "field" of clashes and wars of this kind.

For the West, as well as for Russia, the greatest threat is the activity of Islamic extremists. It is of fundamental importance whether Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine can create viable secular regimes that strive to modernize their societies. Regardless of how events develop in Iraq and Afghanistan, the degree of the military-political involvement of the United States in the Middle East situation will remain high. American troops and strategic facilities in this region, which will retain for a long time key value for strategy national security The United States is extremely vulnerable and, unlike a well-defended national territory The US is a convenient target for terrorists. In the future, the main strategic interests of the United States may shift to East Asia.

In Central Asia, Russia and NATO countries spend time and effort on a traditional geopolitical rivalry that, by analogy with the 19th century, could be called a “little game”. Meanwhile, inter-ethnic conflicts are brewing in the Fergana Valley, capable of "blow up" the fragile stability not only in Uzbekistan, but also in neighboring countries. However, neither Moscow, which has just “squeezed out” the Americans from Uzbekistan, nor Washington, which maintains a military presence in neighboring Kyrgyzstan, nor Beijing, which, thanks to the actions of Tashkent, supported by Moscow, is now experiencing somewhat less pressure on its western borders, have still not determined techniques and means of preventing collisions and counteracting them have not developed an appropriate strategy.

The development of events in Central Asia and the Middle East (Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan) will also determine the nature of future military-political relations between the main powers - the United States, Russia, China and India. Perhaps they will be able to find a path of pragmatic cooperation by joining forces in countering common threats, and then relations between some of these countries may develop into a long-term partnership. If the leading powers take the path of rivalry, it will lead them away from solving real security problems. The world will return to the traditional policy of "balance of power" with indispensable periodic "trials of strength". And then the situation that developed at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, when all the main participants in the system international security do not see each other as potential adversaries will go down in history. A unique opportunity will be missed.

Eleven-week confrontation in May-July 1999 between the Indian armed forces and the separatists who penetrated the territory of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, supported by the armed forces of Pakistan.

Sub-regional international organization, which includes Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. The official creation date is June 14–15, 2001 in Shanghai.

The agreement was first signed on May 15, 1992 by Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. In May 2002, the Treaty was transformed into regional organization(CSTO); its participants are Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan.

Events in West Biryulyovo continued a series of criminal clashes, which, in our opinion, is based on the conquest living space"come in large numbers" and the imposition of their mentality local population. According to the “law”, these “come in large numbers” live only within their diasporas or small enclaves, which they diligently build (not without the help of local authorities) on almost the entire territory of Russia. There are such places in Nizhny Tagil. Unfortunately, the examples from “tolerant Europe” do not teach the Russian authorities anything. Remember Latynin: "condoms for Arabs" ...

But, Forbes decided to look into the past to find examples of other ethnic conflicts in Russia in the 21st century.

Moscow: skinhead attack on Hitler's birthday

On this day, a group of 200 young people smashed the market in Yasenevo. As a result, 10 people were injured, mostly people from Azerbaijan. The police detained 53 people aged 13 to 17, among whom were activists of radical nationalist organizations.

The state prosecutor asked to appoint participants in the riots to 5 years in prison. In total, 6 people were involved in the case of the pogrom in Yasenevo. As a result, the defendants received suspended sentences.

Moscow: pogrom in Tsaritsyno

At the market near the metro station "Tsaritsyno" there were clashes involving 300 people. Young people armed with metal rods were beating merchants from Azerbaijan. According to law enforcement agencies, the massacre was organized by the Russian National Unity movement of Alexander Barkashov. As a result of the pogrom, three people were killed - citizens of Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and India. More than 30 people were injured.

In autumn 2002, the Moscow City Court sentenced five defendants in the criminal case of the Tsaritsyn pogrom to terms ranging from 4 to 9 years in prison.

Chastozerie: battle in the Kurgan region

Date: May 2002

In the district center of Chastoozerye, a fight broke out between Russians and Chechens, in which about 400 people participated. The reason for the showdown was the rape by a representative of the Caucasian diaspora local girl. As a result of the collision, two Chechens were seriously injured.

Krasnoarmeysk: beating in the suburbs

Unrest in a city near Moscow began after a representative of the Armenian diaspora stabbed a 26-year-old in a bar local resident. After that, there were several attacks on Armenian families. Residents of Krasnoarmeysk at spontaneous protests demanded to clear the city of people from the Caucasus.

As a result, only 2 people were detained, against whom a case was initiated under the article “hooliganism”.

Nalchik: revenge on students

Date: September 2003

After in fixed-route taxi natives of Chechnya beat a local resident, in the capital of Kabardino-Balkaria there was a whole series of attacks on Chechen students. About 200 people participated in mass fights, more than 50 were injured.

Iskitim: "fight" against drug trafficking

20 inhabitants of Iskitim ( Novosibirsk region) set fire to more than a dozen houses in a gypsy village. So they decided to defeat the "gypsy drug traffic". After the pogrom, about 400 gypsies left the city.

Behind bars, following the results of the investigation, was the backbone of the Berdsk criminal group led by criminal authorities Alexander Grigoriev and Oleg Bakharev. In total, 7 people were arrested in connection with the pogroms. They received from 9 to 14.5 years in prison.

Novorossiysk: Cossacks attack

A fight between a local Cossack and an Armenian led to mass pogroms: about 200 Cossacks beat several dozen Armenians and destroyed several shops and cafes owned by Caucasians.

Moskhob-Novoselskaya: "good-neighborly" fight

A mass brawl broke out between residents of the border villages of Moskhob (Dagestan) and Novoselskaya (Chechnya). 20 Dagestanis and 5 Chechens were injured in the brawl.

Yandyki: the consequences of the murder

In the Astrakhan village, where immigrants from neighboring North Caucasian republics live compactly, a fight broke out between Kalmyks and Chechens. The reason for the unrest was the murder of a Kalmyk. After the funeral, a crowd of residents moved through the village, beating the Chechens and setting their houses on fire. On the fact of the murder, 12 Chechens received real prison terms from 2.5 to 5 years, and one of the Kalmyk pogromists was sentenced to 7 years in prison.

Nalchik: student brawl

In autumn 2005, in the capital of Kabardino-Balkaria, there was a mass brawl between local students and natives of neighboring Chechnya. About 200 people took part in the brawl. A criminal case was initiated under the article "hooliganism".

Salsk: a fight with consequences

In the city of Rostov, there was a conflict between local residents and representatives of the Dagestan diaspora. In a mass brawl, one person died, 8 were injured. Six natives of Dagestan were charged under Art. 213 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (hooliganism). Another participant in the conflict named Dagirov was charged with murder, intentional destruction of property and illegal storage weapons.

Kondopoga: an eye for an eye

The reason for the interethnic conflict in the Karelian city of logging was a dispute between the administration of the cafe "Chaika" and visitors. After the collision, a group of Chechens arrived at the restaurant "to help". In a scuffle, the Caucasians killed two local residents. This provoked riots: 2 more people died, and Chaika and other establishments belonging to the local Chechen diaspora were burned down.

As a result of the trial, 15 participants in the pogroms were convicted: the instigators of the fight, Yuri Pliev and Sergey Mozgalev, received 8 months and 3.5 years in a strict regime colony, 12 participants in the riots received three years of probation. He was sentenced to 22 years for double murder. Seeking freedom Chechen Islam Magomadov. Four of his accomplices received from 3 to 10 years in prison.

In October 2006, the Kondopoga conflict provoked personnel changes in the power structures of Karelia. Vladimir Putin dismissed the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the republic, Dmitry Mikhailov, and the head of the Federal Security Service, Alexei Dorofeev, and Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika dismissed the prosecutor of the region, Vladimir Panasenko. The word "Kondopoga" for a while became a household name - to denote an interethnic conflict.

Krasnodar Territory: conflict on vacation

The conflict in the health camp "Don" in the Kuban led to a mass brawl of Chechens and local residents. The reason was a rumor about an insult by Caucasians to one of the vacationers. As a result of the conflict, 9 people received minor injuries. The Tuapse District Court of the Krasnodar Territory later sentenced six participants in the fight to suspended sentences.

"Manezhka": a riot of fans

The immediate cause for the riots was the murder on December 6, 2010 of Spartak fan Yegor Sviridov by Aslan Cherkesov, a native of Kabardino-Balkaria. On December 11, football fans and far-right nationalists marched in memory of Sviridov and demanded law enforcement conduct an impartial investigation of the case.

After the procession, which took place in the north of the capital, up to 5,000 people gathered in the city center on Manezhnaya Square for an unsanctioned rally. During the action, riots broke out: the crowd broke through the police cordon, several Caucasians and Central Asian citizens were beaten.

republics. In total, about 30 people were injured during the clashes. The head of the Moscow police department, Vladimir Kolokoltsev, who later became the Minister of Internal Affairs of Russia, personally came to the square to reassure the nationalists.

Charges of participating in mass riots were brought against 4 activists. They received from a year to 3 years in a colony. Also, in the wake of the events on Manezhnaya, three members of the unregistered Other Russia party, Eduard Limonov, ended up in prison. The National Bolsheviks were charged with violence against law enforcement officers. They were sentenced to real terms of imprisonment from 3 to 5 years.

Kobralovo: mass brawl

On the Day of Russia in Kobralov, there was a mass brawl between local residents and representatives of the Dagestan diaspora. Several people were injured as a result. According to the official version, the reason for the brawl was a domestic conflict. A criminal case was initiated under the article "hooliganism".

Sagra: Little War

The conflict in the Ural village took place between local residents and representatives of the Transcaucasian peoples and gypsies, according to the founder of the City Without Drugs Foundation Yevgeny Roizman, involved in drug trafficking. The cause of the conflict was a quarrel between Valentin Lebedev, a gypsy who recently settled in the village, and local residents. Lebedev gathered and led a group of armed firearms people (about 20 people), who went to the village in a convoy. At the entrance to Sagra, they were blocked by local residents. A shootout ensued, during which one of the visitors was killed.

In court, the attack on Sagra was qualified as a riot. 23 people were found guilty, but only six received real terms. The organizers of the attack on the village of Kakhaber Chichua and Shote Katamadze were sentenced to four years in prison.

Osinsky district: workers against residents

The conflict in the Angara region occurred between local residents and Chinese citizens working at the sawmill. The reason was the failure in negotiations on the purchase price of the timber. After the residents began to storm the sawmill, Chinese workers tried to crush several cars with rioters with tractors. A scuffle ensued. The conflict was settled thanks to the mediation of the village administration. Dozens of people were injured in the fight, three were hospitalized. The police detained 18 participants in the brawl. The case was initiated under the article "deliberate destruction or damage to another's property."

According to the FMS, in total Irkutsk region there are about 11,000 Chinese people.

Demyanovo: averted battle

The conflict in the village of Demyanovo occurred between local residents and natives of Dagestan. The reason for the tension was a brawl in a cafe between the owner of the sawmill, a native of North Caucasus and two residents of the village. Two days later, about 40 fellow entrepreneurs arrived from Komi in cars. A day later, about fifty local residents gathered at the sawmill to sort things out with the businessman's family and guests. The fight was prevented by the police who arrived at the scene. The court imposed a fine on the initiators of the conflict. One of the participants in the brawl was sentenced to a year of probation.

Pugachev's uprising: a riot in a small town

Date: July 2013

On July 6, a conflict broke out in Pugachev between 20-year-old local resident Ruslan Marzhanov, who had recently been demobilized after serving in the Airborne Forces, and 16-year-old native of Chechnya Ali Nazirov. The quarrel (either on domestic grounds, or because of the girl) quickly escalated into a fight. In a scuffle, Nazirov mortally wounded Marzhanov with a scalpel blow. The death of a local resident caused unrest in the city. After the funeral, the Pugachevites who gathered for a spontaneous rally demanded that people from the North Caucasian regions be evicted. In a few days, the destruction of the Halal cafe and the blocking of a section of the federal highway were prevented. Additional police and military forces were pulled into the city, and Saratov Governor Valery Radaev had to explain himself to the residents.

Each era in the military history of mankind has its own technological and political specifics. The wars of the 20th century were armed conflicts on a global scale. Almost all major industrial powers participated in these conflicts. No less important, both world wars and the forty-year Cold War reflected the contradictions within Western (European) civilization, which, along with the "mainstream" - liberalism and democracy - gave birth to such extremes as fascism and communism. Even Japanese militarism and the Japanese state itself were designed according to Western patterns. In the 20th century, the wars waged by the countries of the West divided into two factions against non-Western adversaries were perceived as secondary. So, the beginning of World War II is officially considered the German attack on Poland, and not the Japanese invasion of China. Countries that did not belong to European civilization were predominantly politically underdeveloped, technically backward and militarily weak. Since the second half of the 20th century, Western countries began to suffer defeats in remote regions (Suez, Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan), but the third world as a whole, although it turned into the main field of "free hunting" of the superpowers, remained a military-political periphery.

The twentieth century opened with a war between the "pillars" of the then world order, and ended with a series of ethnic conflicts that erupted as a result of the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia. The beginning of the "military-political" XXI century was marked by the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. The new century began under the sign of the globalization of all spheres of life, including the sphere of security. The zone of stable peace, which includes North America, the countries of the European Union and NATO, Japan, Australia, most of Latin America, Russia, China, India, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, South Africa and some other countries, has expanded. But it is increasingly affected by the security deficit zone (Near and Middle East, Central Asia, most of Africa and Southeast Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans); this zone is now even less stable. The wars of the 21st century (in any case, its first quarter) are intercivilizational wars. We are talking about the clash of Western civilization with its irreconcilable enemies, who reject all its values and achievements. The United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia in the North Caucasus (and in the future, it is possible - in Central Asia), Israel, in its confrontation with Palestinian extremists, are waging wars with an adversary that does not rely on the state, does not have a certain territory and population, and which thinks and acts differently than modern states. The era of asymmetric wars has begun. Civil war within Muslim societies is a specific part of these wars.

In the first quarter of the 21st century, the main cause of wars and conflicts in the world is still the contradictions generated by the modernization of the countries of the Near and Middle East. The activities of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Islamic Movement of Turkestan, etc., are primarily a reaction to the growing involvement of the Near and Middle East in global processes. Recognizing the general backwardness of the Arab-Muslim world, its economic uncompetitiveness and, at the same time, the dependence of the West on Middle Eastern oil, the reactionaries seek to discredit the ruling regimes of the countries of the region, declaring them accomplices of the West, overthrow them under Islamist slogans and, having seized power, establish a new order ( caliphate). Along with the threat posed by extremist Islamists, there are also attempts by some regimes in the region to gain access to nuclear weapons. These two political trends determine the main content of the problem of military security in today's world and in the foreseeable future (the next 15-20 years).

Below are expert assessments of the likelihood of military conflicts, both nuclear and with the use of only conventional weapons. Our forecast is limited to the first quarter of the 21st century.

Nuclear conflicts

A large-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia is no longer possible. After the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, nuclear weapons were no longer seen as a means of achieving victory in war. Since then, Moscow and Washington have been practicing a policy of nuclear deterrence based on the principle of mutually assured destruction. After the political and ideological basis of the global confrontation disappeared in the early 1990s, Russian-American deterrence became more of a technical problem. Having overcome outright antagonism, Russia and the United States have not become either allies or even full-fledged partners. Moscow and Washington still do not trust each other, the rivalry has weakened, but has not stopped. The United States believes that the main problem of the Russian nuclear missile potential is its security, i.e. technical serviceability and the exclusion of unauthorized access to the “launch button”. From the point of view of the Russian Federation, nuclear weapons are a "status symbol" that allows the Russian leadership to claim the role of a great power. At a time when Russia's international influence has declined significantly and the feeling of vulnerability has risen sharply, it plays the role of "psychological support".

There is no ideological component in Sino-American relations, and geopolitical rivalry is limited. At the same time, there is a huge, constantly growing economic interdependence. A cold war between China and the US is by no means inevitable. At one time, the Chinese leadership, unlike the Soviet one, did not take the path of a sharp increase in nuclear potential, did not begin to compete with America in the nuclear missile arms race. Now the PRC is still implementing the strategy of "minimum nuclear deterrence" of the United States. Apparently, China and the United States tend to avoid aggravating relations that could provoke a nuclear conflict. In the next two decades, the likelihood of such a conflict is very small, even despite the Taiwan problem, which both Washington and Beijing do not let out and will not let out of sight.

In the context of the "creeping" proliferation of nuclear weapons, the likelihood of limited nuclear wars increases. The emergence of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan in 1998 marked the possibility of such a war in Hindustan. It is possible, however, that the Kargil incident that followed, the first armed conflict in history between states possessing nuclear weapons, played approximately the same role in Indo-Pakistani relations as the Cuban Missile Crisis played in the Soviet-American confrontation. Elements of mutual deterrence are being formed in the military policy of Delhi and Islamabad. In recent years, according to experts, the real threat is not so much the nuclear weapons of both countries as the possibility of an acute internal political crisis in Pakistan, the collapse of statehood and the seizure of nuclear weapons by Islamist extremists.

If North Korea possesses several nuclear weapons, then the Korean Peninsula is also a potential theater of nuclear war. However, an analysis of Pyongyang's policy shows that the North Korean leadership is using nuclear weapons as a guarantee of maintaining the existing regime and as an instrument of economic blackmail against the United States, South Korea and Japan. The nuclear problem will appear in a completely different form in the event of the unification of Korea. Seoul, having inherited Pyongyang's nuclear developments, may want to keep them. Tokyo's reaction is easily predictable: Japan will decide to acquire its own nuclear weapons. This will be followed by the appropriate response from Beijing, the intervention of Washington, etc. - with an unclear end result.

Israel has long resorted to nuclear deterrence against its Arab neighbors, whose policies threaten the very existence of the Jewish state. The peace process in the Middle East, which began shortly after the end of the 1973 war, led to the establishment of stable Israeli relations with Egypt and Jordan. Nevertheless, the full normalization of Israel's relations with the Arab world is a matter of the distant future, and until then the nuclear factor retains its significance in Israeli-Arab relations.

If Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, the consequences could be manifold: a preventive war by the United States and (or) Israel against Iran, and further proliferation of nuclear weapons (possible candidates: Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria), and the formation of a mutual deterrence of the United States in an alliance with Israel on the one hand and Iran on the other. Any of these scenarios poses a serious risk to regional and global security. Obviously, there is a need for international control over Tehran's nuclear program and Iran's reintegration into the world community. There is no other way to solve the Iranian nuclear problem.

The development of science and technology has made "pinpoint" nuclear strikes possible and justified from a military point of view. The admissibility of the preventive use of nuclear weapons to destroy terrorist bases and fortified facilities on the territory of states seeking to acquire nuclear weapons is an important innovation in American military doctrine. In principle, the military-political leadership of Russia can follow the same path. It is clear, however, that even such a "surgical intervention" would have enormous political consequences, since it would remove the taboo on the combat use of nuclear weapons.

In the meantime, the use of nuclear weapons (or, more likely, nuclear materials) by terrorists is becoming more and more likely. The objects of their attacks may be the United States, Russia, Israel, European countries, Australia and many other states. There is also a great danger of terrorists using other types of weapons of mass destruction, primarily biological ones.

So, we have to conclude that the possible scale of conflicts with the use of nuclear weapons has sharply decreased, but the likelihood of their occurrence has increased significantly.

Conventional conflicts

A large-scale conventional war (“World War III”), which was feared and prepared for during the Cold War, is almost unbelievable today. Although relations between NATO and Russia have not turned into allied ones (“an alliance with an alliance,” according to the well-known formula of the former US ambassador to Moscow A. Vershbow), both sides are gradually dismantling the infrastructure of half a century of confrontation. Russia's relations with the leading European NATO countries can already be considered demilitarized today: a war between Russia and Germany is as unthinkable as a war between Germany and France. As far as Poland and the Baltic states are concerned, although it is now hardly possible to speak of Russia's friendship with these countries, the use of military force is practically out of the question. The final guarantee of "eternal peace" between Russia and its Western neighbors may paradoxically be Ukraine's entry into NATO: an armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine supported by the West is impossible. In the East, Russia's relations with Japan and South Korea, US allies in the Cold War, can be compared to Russian-German or Russian-Italian.

Regional wars are also unlikely. The nature of the interaction of any pair of large states can be conditionally called peaceful and relatively stable. Russian-Chinese and Chinese-Indian relations are characterized by a long-term trend towards strengthening partnership. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) generally contribute to strengthening peace in the region, primarily in Central Asia. The Russian-Indian partnership is strategically unproblematic - a case almost unique for large states that are not formally allies. Sino-Japanese relations are on a downward trend, but are held back by strong economic interdependence.

The likelihood of a war in the Middle East between Israel and the Arab countries is gradually decreasing. The solution of the Palestinian problem can create conditions for the gradual (over several decades) transformation of the Eastern Mediterranean into a zone of conditional peace. At the same time, serious factors of uncertainty are the development of the domestic political situation in Egypt (especially after President H. Mubarak left the political arena) and in the Palestinian Authority.

The most widespread conflicts in the XXI century, apparently, will be local wars generated by interethnic contradictions. For Russia, the resumption of the Armenian-Azerbaijani war would be especially dangerous. The armed struggle for Nagorno-Karabakh will have the character of both a traditional interstate and interethnic clash. “Frozen” ethnic conflicts in Transcaucasia (Abkhazia, South Ossetia) and in the Balkans (Kosovo, the “Albanian issue” in Macedonia, etc.) also threaten regional destabilization, unless they can be resolved. In the Middle East, an international "earthquake" may cause the actualization of the Kurdish issue. However, experts predict that Africa will become the main "field" of clashes and wars of this kind.

For the West, as well as for Russia, the greatest threat is the activity of Islamic extremists. It is of fundamental importance whether Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine can create viable secular regimes that strive to modernize their societies. Regardless of how events develop in Iraq and Afghanistan, the degree of the military-political involvement of the United States in the Middle East situation will remain high. US troops and strategic installations in this region, which will remain key to the US national security strategy for a long time to come, are extremely vulnerable and, unlike the well-defended US national territory, are an easy target for terrorists. In the future, the main strategic interests of the United States may move to East Asia.

In Central Asia, Russia and NATO countries spend time and effort on a traditional geopolitical rivalry that, by analogy with the 19th century, could be called a “little game”. Meanwhile, inter-ethnic conflicts are brewing in the Fergana Valley, capable of “blow up” the fragile stability not only in Uzbekistan, but also in neighboring countries. However, neither Moscow, which has just “squeezed out” the Americans from Uzbekistan, nor Washington, which maintains a military presence in neighboring Kyrgyzstan, nor Beijing, which, thanks to the actions of Tashkent, supported by Moscow, is now experiencing somewhat less pressure on its western borders, have still not determined techniques and means of preventing collisions and counteracting them have not developed an appropriate strategy.

The development of events in Central Asia and the Middle East (Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan) will also determine the nature of future military-political relations between the main powers - the United States, Russia, China and India. Perhaps they will be able to find a path of pragmatic cooperation by joining forces in countering common threats, and then relations between some of these countries may develop into a long-term partnership. If the leading powers take the path of rivalry, it will lead them away from solving real security problems. The world will return to the traditional policy of "balance of power" with indispensable periodic "trials of strength". And then the situation that developed at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, when all the main participants in the international security system do not consider each other as potential adversaries, will go down in history. A unique opportunity will be missed.

Sub-regional international organization, which includes Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. The official creation date is June 14–15, 2001 in Shanghai.

The agreement was first signed on May 15, 1992 by Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. In May 2002, the Treaty was transformed into a regional organization (CSTO); its participants are Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan.

- 41.51 Kb

Introduction

The 21st century is under the sign of globalization, which opens the era of world history. The last decade of the 20th century, filled with euphoria from the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet system, gave rise to illusions that violence was over. They were tragically buried under the rubble of the World Trade Center, which once again proved the truth of Plato's saying: "Only the dead have seen the end of the war." Globalization has not put an end to war, just as economic crises or revolutions have not been able to do it, to the grief of democracies, regimes that are peaceful in their essence, and Europe, which is not allowed to sleep peacefully by the ghosts of the world conflicts of the 20th century generated by it, which cost it colossal material and moral losses. . But globalization has led to the emergence of new types of war.

The beginning of the "military-political" XXI century was marked by the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. The new century began under the sign of the globalization of all spheres of life, including the sphere of security. The zone of stable peace, which includes North America, the countries of the European Union and NATO, Japan, Australia, most of Latin America, Russia, China, India, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, South Africa and some other countries, has expanded. But it is increasingly affected by the security deficit zone (Near and Middle East, Central Asia, most of Africa and Southeast Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans); this zone is now even less stable. The wars of the 21st century (in any case, its first quarter) are intercivilizational wars. We are talking about the clash of Western civilization with its irreconcilable enemies, who reject all its values and achievements. The United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia in the North Caucasus (and in the future, it is possible - in Central Asia), Israel, in its confrontation with Palestinian extremists, are waging wars with an adversary that does not rely on the state, does not have a certain territory and population, and which thinks and acts differently than modern states. The era of asymmetric wars has begun. Civil war within Muslim societies is a specific part of these wars.

Along with the threat posed by extremist Islamists, there are also attempts by some regimes in the region to gain access to nuclear weapons. These two political trends determine the main content of the problem of military security in today's world and in the foreseeable future (the next 15-20 years).

Current conflicts

Peace

War on international terrorism. The war is waged by the United States and its numerous allies against international terrorist organizations. The war began on September 11, 2001 after terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The UN and many countries of the world take part in the war.

Europe

Russia vs Georgia

The conflict revolves around the problem of the independence of the breakaway parts of Georgia - Abkhazia and South Ossetia - who have declared independence, which was recognized by Russia and Nicaragua. In 2008, the conflict entered a "hot" phase. In the process of settlement important role played by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the European Union.

By the tragic date 08.08.08 Russia and Georgia have been going for a long time, but steadily. In recent years, the interstate contradictions that have accumulated over the post-Soviet period have also begun to be superimposed by the personal hostility of the political leaders of the two countries, and the hope that the rising tension can be removed during their personal meeting, as happened, say, during the presidency of Eduard Shevardnadze, or took place in the relations of other CIS countries, in general, was not. It is obvious that Russian-Georgian relations have entered such a phase that without major strategic concessions by one of the parties, one could not even dream of a full-fledged normalization of relations. Neither Russia nor Georgia aspired to them.

By August 8, 2008, Moscow and Tbilisi had a completely divergent foreign policy, grandiose mutual accusations of organizing terrorist attacks and condoning terrorism, spy scandals, a tough visa regime, irregular direct transport links, a unilateral trade embargo, mass deportation of Georgian citizens from Russia, a recalled from Moscow, the Georgian ambassador, extremely painful for Tbilisi, the order of the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin on special economic relations between Russia and Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The attempts to reach an agreement a few days before the start of hostilities are also very indicative, when for "childish" reasons either a Russian representative or a Georgian representative could not get to the talks. By that time, the situation in South Ossetia had escalated to such an extent that the commander of the peacekeeping forces, General Marat Kulakhmetov, in a comment to NG, frankly and bluntly stated that it was about to get out of control, and admitted that he himself was influencing it. no longer able.

The sides are provoking each other, gunfights have become commonplace, and if politicians and mediators do not take action in the coming hours active action for stabilization, the consequences will be very severe, Kulakhmetov said. And he was right.

On August 8, on the day of the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing, a war began in South Ossetia, which later became known as the “five-day war”. In less than a week, Russian troops completely drove Georgian units out of South Ossetia, established control over strategic facilities in other regions of Georgia, and bombed the suburbs of Tbilisi, knocking out military airfields and radar stations. At the same time, the armed forces of Abkhazia occupied the entire Kodori Gorge - the only region of the republic that remained under the control of Tbilisi.

Hostilities were stopped after the intervention of the West, the shuttle trips of French President Nicolas Sarkozy to Moscow and Tbilisi for negotiations with the presidents of the warring parties, Dmitry Medvedev and Mikhail Saakashvili, which, in turn, ended with the signing of a peace agreement on the names of the French and Russian presidents. It was not possible to persuade them to hold direct negotiations because of the abundance of mutual preconditions, and already on August 26, 2008, Dmitry Medvedev announced the recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Later, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Nauru followed the Russian example. In response, Tbilisi announced the severance of diplomatic relations with the Russian Federation and Georgia's withdrawal from the CIS. The latter was symbolic, because by that time Georgia's stay in the Commonwealth was conditional and was limited only to participation in summits of various levels. Nevertheless, the protocol procedures for the annulment of membership took another year, and Georgia ceased to be a member of the CIS only in 2009.

By that time, the interpretation of the causes of the 2008 war had undergone a metamorphosis. If at first everything indicated that the Georgian side, pointing to the shelling of Georgian villages by Ossetian units, set about restoring constitutional order on its territory by introducing an army and police forces into the region in violation of a number of agreements on the regime of non-resumption of fire in South Ossetia, and Moscow took retaliatory actions to protect the Russian peacekeepers stationed there and those living in South Ossetia Russian citizens(the vast majority of the inhabitants of the region acquired Russian passports), but, according to the West, used excessive force, then after a year, the version of Russia’s aggression, which decided to get rid of the pro-American regime of Saakashvili and return Georgia, thus, to the zone of its geopolitical influence. And Tbilisi's actions were of a forced nature - troops were brought into South Ossetia to resist the aggressor.

The spread of this pro-Georgian interpretation, supported by Saakashvili's international allies - the leaders of a number of countries in Eastern Europe and certain US circles, of the tragic events was greatly facilitated by the clumsy information support of their own actions by Moscow and the South Ossetian authorities. In particular, during the first independent monitoring, accusations against the Georgian side about the atrocities committed by the military against the peaceful Ossetian population, as well as organized genocide, crumbled. The figures on civilian casualties have undergone a significant adjustment - as it turned out, not several thousand civilians died, as the Ossetian side claimed, but about 200, which reduces the scale, although it does not cancel the tragedy itself. Finally, the conclusion of the international commission to study the causes of the war, led by Heidi Tagliavini, turned out to be ambiguous. The summary of the commission is rather vague about the guilt of Georgia, which succumbed to provocations and sent troops to the region, and contains no less accusations against Moscow, which exceeded its authority, responded with disproportionate force, and, finally, did not comply with the terms of the Medvedev-Sarkozy peace agreement regarding the withdrawal of forces to pre-war positions. By the way, Tbilisi is insisting on this today, naming official documents stationed, according to the Russian-Abkhazian and Russian-South Ossetian agreements concluded later, Russian military bases by "occupation troops". Moreover, Tbilisi has succeeded in securing this term at the international level as well – in particular, a number of documents containing this wording have been adopted by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, several less prominent international institutions, as well as the highest legislative bodies of some Eastern European countries.

Today, the situation appears to be as follows. Tbilisi worsened the possibility of restoring territorial integrity. However, even before the war, objectively, there were few of them. But now Tbilisi is doing everything possible, and so far successfully, to transfer the conversation about Abkhazia and South Ossetia to a different plane. Namely, it demands "the de-occupation of the primordially Georgian territories by Russia."

Abkhazia and South Ossetia, having received the recognition of sovereignty from Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua and Nauru, cannot count on more in this regard today. Entirely politically and economically dependent on Moscow, Sukhum and Tskhinval seem to understand the formalities of their independence.

Russia, having recognized the sovereignties of the former Georgian autonomies, having assumed the mission of the guarantor of these sovereignties, at the same time "loaded" its own budget with these two territorial entities. And if one can somehow count on the self-sufficiency of Abkhazia in the future, if only because of its geographical location, then South Ossetia looks like that same black hole in which one can endlessly invest without much effect. Moscow's hopes for a chain of recognitions of the sovereignties of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by the CIS allies did not come true. Partners behaved conservatively. Particularly disappointing was Belarus, whose president Alexander Lukashenko, according to Russian sources, has promised to follow Moscow's example but has not yet done so. Thus, the Russian response to the West on Kosovo came out today not equivalent.

Asia

Near East

In the first quarter of the 21st century, the main cause of conflicts in the world is still the contradictions generated by the modernization of the countries of the Near and Middle East. The activities of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Islamic Movement of Turkestan, etc., are primarily a reaction to the growing involvement of the Near and Middle East in global processes. Recognizing the general backwardness of the Arab-Muslim world, its economic uncompetitiveness and, at the same time, the dependence of the West on Middle Eastern oil, the reactionaries seek to discredit the ruling regimes of the countries of the region, declaring them accomplices of the West, overthrow them under Islamist slogans and, having seized power, establish a new order ( caliphate).

Iraqi government and international forces against Iraqi insurgents and al-Qaeda terrorists

The conflict began in 2003 after the occupation of Iraq by the forces of an international coalition led by the United States. Several dozen states are directly or indirectly involved in the conflict.

Iran and Turkey against the Kurds

The conflict has dragged on since 1961, the Kurds, represented by various organizations - some of them using terrorist methods - are seeking independence.

Israel against terrorist groups (Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, etc.)

The conflict between Israel and terrorists who do not want to recognize the fact of the existence of the Jewish state has been going on since 1975 and has mainly territorial and religious reasons. The UN, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, the USA, the European Union, Russia are directly or indirectly involved in the conflict.

Israel vs Syria and Lebanon

The latest phase of this long conflict began in 2001 and involved the activation of the Hezbollah paramilitary organization based in Lebanon and backed by Syria and Iran. The conflict is over territory, control over water sources and for many other reasons, including religious ones. The UN, the USA, Turkey, the European Union, the League of Arab States are involved in the settlement of the conflict.

Afghan government against the Taliban and Al Qaeda

Description of work

Globalization has not put an end to war, just as economic crises or revolutions have not been able to do it, to the grief of democracies, regimes that are peaceful in their essence, and Europe, which is not allowed to sleep peacefully by the ghosts of the world conflicts of the 20th century generated by it, which cost it colossal material and moral losses. . But globalization has led to the emergence of new types of war.
The beginning of the "military-political" XXI century was marked by the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. The new century began under the sign of the globalization of all spheres of life, including the sphere of security.

Each era in the military history of mankind has its own technological and political specifics. The wars of the 20th century were armed conflicts on a global scale. Almost all major industrial powers participated in these conflicts. It is equally important that both world wars and the forty-year cold war reflected the contradictions within Western (European) civilization, which, along with the "mainstream" - liberalism and democracy - gave birth to such extremes as fascism and communism. Even Japanese militarism and the Japanese state itself were designed according to Western patterns. In the 20th century, the wars waged by the countries of the West divided into two factions against non-Western adversaries were perceived as secondary. So, the beginning of World War II is officially considered the German attack on Poland, and not the Japanese invasion of China. Countries that did not belong to European civilization were predominantly politically underdeveloped, technically backward and militarily weak. Since the second half of the 20th century, Western countries began to suffer defeats in remote regions (Suez, Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan), but the third world as a whole, although it turned into the main field of "free hunting" of the superpowers, remained a military-political periphery.

The twentieth century opened with a war between the "pillars" of the then world order, and ended with a series of ethnic conflicts that erupted as a result of the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia. The beginning of the "military-political" XXI century was marked by the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001. The new century began under the sign of the globalization of all spheres of life, including the sphere of security. The zone of stable peace, which includes North America, the countries of the European Union and NATO, Japan, Australia, most of Latin America, Russia, China, India, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, South Africa and some other countries, has expanded. But it is increasingly affected by the security deficit zone (Near and Middle East, Central Asia, most of Africa and Southeast Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans); this zone is now even less stable. The wars of the 21st century (in any case, its first quarter) are intercivilizational wars. We are talking about the clash of Western civilization with its irreconcilable enemies, who reject all its values and achievements. The United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia in the North Caucasus (and in the future, it is possible - in Central Asia), Israel, in its confrontation with Palestinian extremists, are waging wars with an adversary that does not rely on the state, does not have a certain territory and population, and which thinks and acts differently than modern states. The era of asymmetric wars has begun. Civil war within Muslim societies is a specific part of these wars.

In the first quarter of the 21st century, the main cause of wars and conflicts in the world is still the contradictions generated by the modernization of the countries of the Near and Middle East. The activities of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Islamic Movement of Turkestan, etc., are primarily a reaction to the growing involvement of the Near and Middle East in global processes. Recognizing the general backwardness of the Arab-Muslim world, its economic uncompetitiveness and, at the same time, the dependence of the West on Middle Eastern oil, the reactionaries seek to discredit the ruling regimes of the countries of the region, declaring them accomplices of the West, overthrow them under Islamist slogans and, having seized power, establish a new order ( caliphate). Along with the threat posed by extremist Islamists, there are also attempts by some regimes in the region to gain access to nuclear weapons. These two political trends determine the main content of the problem of military security in today's world and in the foreseeable future (the next 15-20 years).

Below are expert assessments of the likelihood of military conflicts, both nuclear and with the use of only conventional weapons. Our forecast is limited to the first quarter of the 21st century.

Nuclear conflicts

A large-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia is no longer possible. After the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, nuclear weapons were no longer seen as a means of achieving victory in war. Since then, Moscow and Washington have been practicing a policy of nuclear deterrence based on the principle of mutually assured destruction. After the political and ideological basis of the global confrontation disappeared in the early 1990s, Russian-American deterrence became more of a technical problem. Having overcome outright antagonism, Russia and the United States have not become either allies or even full-fledged partners. Moscow and Washington still do not trust each other, the rivalry has weakened, but has not stopped. The United States believes that the main problem of the Russian nuclear missile potential is its security, i.e. technical serviceability and the exclusion of unauthorized access to the "launch button". From the point of view of the Russian Federation, nuclear weapons are a "status symbol" that allows the Russian leadership to claim the role of a great power. At a time when Russia's international influence has declined significantly and the feeling of vulnerability has risen sharply, it plays the role of "psychological support".

There is no ideological component in Sino-American relations, and geopolitical rivalry is limited. At the same time, there is a huge, constantly growing economic interdependence. A cold war between China and the US is by no means inevitable. At one time, the Chinese leadership, unlike the Soviet one, did not take the path of a sharp increase in nuclear potential, did not begin to compete with America in the nuclear missile arms race. Now the PRC is still implementing the strategy of "minimum nuclear deterrence" of the United States. Apparently, China and the United States tend to avoid aggravating relations that could provoke a nuclear conflict. In the next two decades, the likelihood of such a conflict is very small, even despite the Taiwan problem, which both Washington and Beijing do not let out and will not let out of sight.

In the context of the "creeping" proliferation of nuclear weapons, the likelihood of limited nuclear wars increases. The emergence of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan in 1998 marked the possibility of such a war in Hindustan. It is possible, however, that the Kargil incident that followed, the first armed conflict in history between states possessing nuclear weapons, played approximately the same role in Indo-Pakistani relations as the Caribbean Crisis in the Soviet-American confrontation. Elements of mutual deterrence are being formed in the military policy of Delhi and Islamabad. In recent years, according to experts, the real threat is not so much the nuclear weapons of both countries as the possibility of an acute internal political crisis in Pakistan, the collapse of statehood and the seizure of nuclear weapons by Islamist extremists.

If North Korea possesses several nuclear weapons, then the Korean Peninsula is also a potential theater of nuclear war. However, an analysis of Pyongyang's policy shows that the North Korean leadership is using nuclear weapons as a guarantee of maintaining the existing regime and as an instrument of economic blackmail against the United States, South Korea and Japan. The nuclear problem will appear in a completely different form in the event of the unification of Korea. Seoul, having inherited Pyongyang's nuclear developments, may want to keep them. Tokyo's reaction is easily predictable: Japan will decide to acquire its own nuclear weapons. This will be followed by a corresponding response from Beijing, intervention by Washington, etc. - with an unclear end result.

Israel has long resorted to nuclear deterrence against its Arab neighbors, whose policies threaten the very existence of the Jewish state. The peace process in the Middle East, which began shortly after the end of the 1973 war, led to the establishment of stable Israeli relations with Egypt and Jordan. Nevertheless, the full normalization of Israel's relations with the Arab world is a matter of the distant future, and until then the nuclear factor retains its significance in Israeli-Arab relations.

So, we have to conclude that the possible scale of conflicts with the use of nuclear weapons has sharply decreased, but the likelihood of their occurrence has increased significantly.

Conventional conflicts

A large-scale conventional war (“World War III”), which was feared and prepared for during the Cold War, is almost unbelievable today. Although relations between NATO and Russia have not turned into allied ones (“an alliance with an alliance,” according to the well-known formula of the former US ambassador to Moscow A. Vershbow), both sides are gradually dismantling the infrastructure of half a century of confrontation. Russia's relations with the leading European NATO countries can already be considered demilitarized today: a war between Russia and Germany is as unthinkable as a war between Germany and France. As far as Poland and the Baltic states are concerned, although it is now hardly possible to speak of Russia's friendship with these countries, the use of military force is practically out of the question. The final guarantee of "eternal peace" between Russia and its Western neighbors may paradoxically be Ukraine's entry into NATO: an armed conflict between Russia and Ukraine supported by the West is impossible. In the East, Russia's relations with Japan and South Korea, US allies in the Cold War, can be compared to Russian-German or Russian-Italian.

Regional wars are also unlikely. The nature of the interaction of any pair of large states can be conditionally called peaceful and relatively stable. Russian-Chinese and Chinese-Indian relations are characterized by a long-term trend towards strengthening partnership. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) generally contribute to strengthening peace in the region, primarily in Central Asia. The Russian-Indian partnership is strategically unproblematic - an almost unique case for large states that are not formally allies. Sino-Japanese relations are on a downward trend, but are held back by strong economic interdependence.

The likelihood of a war in the Middle East between Israel and the Arab countries is gradually decreasing. The solution of the Palestinian problem can create conditions for the gradual (over several decades) transformation of the Eastern Mediterranean into a zone of conditional peace. At the same time, serious factors of uncertainty are the development of the domestic political situation in Egypt (especially after President H. Mubarak left the political arena) and in the Palestinian Authority.

The most widespread conflicts in the XXI century, apparently, will be local wars generated by interethnic contradictions. For Russia, the resumption of the Armenian-Azerbaijani war would be especially dangerous. The armed struggle for Nagorno-Karabakh will have the character of both a traditional interstate and interethnic clash. “Frozen” ethnic conflicts in Transcaucasia (Abkhazia, South Ossetia) and in the Balkans (Kosovo, the “Albanian issue” in Macedonia, etc.) also threaten regional destabilization, unless they can be resolved. In the Middle East, an international "earthquake" may cause the actualization of the Kurdish issue. However, experts predict that Africa will become the main "field" of clashes and wars of this kind.

For the West, as well as for Russia, the greatest threat is the activity of Islamic extremists. It is of fundamental importance whether Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine can create viable secular regimes that strive to modernize their societies. Regardless of how events develop in Iraq and Afghanistan, the degree of the military-political involvement of the United States in the Middle East situation will remain high. US troops and strategic installations in this region, which will remain key to the US national security strategy for a long time to come, are extremely vulnerable and, unlike the well-defended US national territory, are an easy target for terrorists. In the future, the main strategic interests of the United States may move to East Asia.

In Central Asia, Russia and NATO countries spend time and effort on a traditional geopolitical rivalry that, by analogy with the 19th century, could be called a “little game”. Meanwhile, inter-ethnic conflicts are brewing in the Fergana Valley, capable of “blow up” the fragile stability not only in Uzbekistan, but also in neighboring countries. However, neither Moscow, which has just “squeezed out” the Americans from Uzbekistan, nor Washington, which maintains a military presence in neighboring Kyrgyzstan, nor Beijing, which, thanks to the actions of Tashkent, supported by Moscow, is now experiencing somewhat less pressure on its western borders, have still not determined techniques and means of preventing collisions and counteracting them have not developed an appropriate strategy.

The development of events in Central Asia and the Middle East (Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan) will also determine the nature of future military-political relations between the main powers - the United States, Russia, China and India. Perhaps they will be able to find a path of pragmatic cooperation by joining forces in countering common threats, and then relations between some of these countries may develop into a long-term partnership. If the leading powers take the path of rivalry, it will lead them away from solving real security problems. The world will return to the traditional policy of "balance of power" with indispensable periodic "trials of strength". And then the situation that developed at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, when all the main participants in the international security system do not consider each other as potential adversaries, will go down in history. A unique opportunity will be missed.

Sub-regional international organization, which includes Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. The official creation date is June 14–15, 2001 in Shanghai.