military experts
Set as default language
 Edit Translation

Basic principles and rules of civilized war

Basic principles and rules of civilized war

War is life inside out. This is the hardest physical and psychological work., with bloody calluses not only on the hands and other parts of the body, but also in my heart. And they stay with you forever. This provided, that you are alive. And you are forever more fortunate, than others. But now you're in front of them, those others, who did not return, in debt. You must try to think right, speak and act. And even more so to write about NWO.

A bit of philosophy

Let's define the discipline of our discussion. Since the topic of the article is related to weapons and military equipment, used in combat, Let's start with the notion of "war"..

There is a science of war (polemology), and there is a science of the world (paxology), and there is the science of warfare (military art). Each of these sciences has its own areas for study., system of classifications and concepts, categories and definitions. And all these sciences study that, related to one word, and that word is "war".

Let's start simple, from Wikipedia: “War is a conflict between political entities (States, tribes, political groups, etc.), based on various claims, in the form of armed confrontation, military (martial) actions between their armed forces".

The combination of the words “tribes” in this definition is especially touching., "claims" and "armed forces". It turns out, that Adolf Hitler had "various claims" to the "Slavic tribes", which he tried to solve with the help of "armed forces", well, that is, the tank divisions of the Wehrmacht and the Sonderkommandos of the SS.

And further "Wikipedia" gives a brief description of a number of reasons for the emergence of wars and their classification.. Here, behavioral, evolutionary, sociological, demographic, Malthusian, rationalistic, economic theory and youth dominance theory. The concept of a distraction war is given and even the position of Mrs. Ayn Rand (she is a citizen Alisa Zinovievna Rosenbaum, former native of St. Petersburg) as the creators of objectivism.

We will not engage in criticism of "Wikipedia". We will try to form our own view of what is happening. What leaders say, doctrinal, documents of our state? What is the definition of "war"?

And we will start with the main law of our state, from the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The Constitution of the Russian Federation contains an article, 83 paragraph “h” of which reads: "The President of the Russian Federation approves the military doctrine of the Russian Federation".

It means, that for our state the theoretical and political principles, which are a set of official views (installations) to military-political, military-strategic and military-economic foundations for ensuring the military security of the Russian Federation, personally determined by the President of the Russian Federation.

The next one will be a very fresh document, which is called "Military Doctrine of the Union State" (approved by the decision of the Supreme State Council of the Union State dated 4 November 2021 g. № 5), and in it. 1 Chapters 1 "General Provisions", which states: "Military Doctrine of the Union State (hereinafter - Military Doctrine) - a system of views officially adopted in the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation on ensuring the military security of the Union State".

And this document immediately gives us a definition of the concept of "war", sharply different from the one given in "Wikipedia", namely: “War is a socio-political phenomenon, which is an extreme form of resolving political, economic, ideological, national, religious, territorial and other contradictions between states, peoples, nations and social groups with the use of military force by the opposing sides" (P. 5 Chapters 1).

Let's study another document, called "Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation" (approved by the President of the Russian Federation. Putin 25.12.2014 No. Pr-2976) and there we find, what:

"Mr) military conflict - a form of resolving interstate or intrastate contradictions with the use of military force (the concept covers all types of armed confrontation, including large scale, regional, local wars and armed conflicts);

is) regional war - a war involving several states of the same region, conducted by national or coalition armed forces, during which the parties pursue important military-political goals;

with) large-scale war - a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties pursue radical military-political goals. Large-scale war may be the result of an escalation of armed conflict, local or regional war involving a significant number of states from different regions of the world. This war will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating states".

And after carefully reading all of the above, we can get answers to very important questions.

Based on the above definitions, it turns out, US, The European Union and other satellites with Ukraine ran errands against Russia, the coalition of these states in relation to Russia pursues radical military-political goals and this has led to an internal armed conflict in Ukraine, in which Russia supported one of the parties.

This means, that the Russian Federation is a participant in a military conflict in the format of a Special Military Operation.

Question: what is the goal of a military conflict for a coalition of "civilized" Western states?

Answer: the purpose of this military conflict is not even the liberation of "Ukrainian" lands from Russian "occupiers", namely the conquest and control of Russia's resources, Belarus and Ukraine.

And with regard to Russia and Belarus, the war of the Americans is also a desire to eliminate the existing government (constitutional order) in these states with a simultaneous change in the mass consciousness of the people, inhabiting them, in order to control the consciousness of this people!

example, that the "global and civilized" coalition of states in terms of the implementation of the project, relatively so far, Ukraine has succeeded, we are seeing clearly right now.

And this is the answer to the question, Why did we start SVO? For, so they don't do it to us, what was done to them and to their country.

And another burning question, and is mobilization necessary??

Recall, that it is directly stated in p.p.. "with" p. 8 head 1 "Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation": "... will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States".

And then, the answer is clear too., mobilization is not just needed, it is already needed. Moreover, this is only a partial mobilization, and therefore, it is fully justified by the whole situation with NWO, which is now unfolding before us.

At the same time, one must take into account, that every war (for us, the emphasis on CBO is placed above) has its own social, political foundations and economic goals. In the future, the results of such a war have an unambiguously enormous, if not decisive, impact on social, technical, ideological and cultural development of both countries and peoples of the winners, so countries and peoples defeated, and even for entire civilizations. For example, the Inca empires, Maya and Aztec, which simply disappeared as a result of colonization by Spain.

And after all, there are more than enough such examples in our human history., starting from the Persian wars of Achaemenid Persia with the Greek city-states, civil wars of Mars during the Republican period of Ancient Rome, Hundred Years War in Europe, almost real with the help of the worst weather of the defeat of the Spanish Invincible Armada by the British, victorious European march of Napoleon with a sad result in Russia, World War I and our Great Patriotic War.

The ancient Greeks who stopped the Persians, Italians who lost the Allied Civil War, French led by Joan of Arc, saved their state from collapse, Spanish, who destroyed almost their entire fleet and did not return the British to Catholicism, Patriotic War 1812 years and the Sixth Coalition, finished off the army of Bonaparte and returned Europe back to the fallen imperial families, and the final decline of the Habsburg Empire and the House of Romanov, and the peoples of the USSR who defeated Nazism - the results of the wars, which became truly turning points in the history of human civilization.

And our NWO is also a turning point in history. Russian history for sure!

"Our cause is just, the enemy will be defeated, victory will be ours!»

This phrase is from Molotov's speech 22 June 1941 of the year. Is our cause right?? Have we done the right thing, starting NWO?

Let's try to answer this question. There is another doctrine, and she will help us deal with this extremely important issue..

And the pharaohs of ancient Egypt, and Chinese emperors of the Warring States era, and Indian Hindu epic "Mahabharata", and Aristotle, and Ancient Rome asked the question about the essence of the just cause of the outbreak of war.

Already in the Middle Ages, the Christian philosopher Thomas Aquinas, the humanist Hugo Grotius and the Italian Jesuits tried with their works to influence the formation of the concept of a just war among the people of that time.

But only by the end of the 19th century the concept was formalized in the international texts of the Hague Peace Conferences. (1899 and 1907 years) and in documents at the founding of the League of Nations in 1920 year. Further development is the Geneva Conventions 1949 Years and the Nuremberg Principles, substantiated by the International Law Commission in 1950.

Let's remember Lenin, who at the beginning of the twentieth century defined three types of war, calling "the great and only legitimate and just war the war of the oppressed against the oppressors".

Nowadays, in the "Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church" there is a section "War and Peace", giving an understanding of the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church to the war. It provides criteria for delimiting aggressive war, which is unacceptable, and justified war, in which the military feat of a true believer is defined as the highest moral and sacred value. Yes, war is evil, but if the goal is the life and protection of one's neighbor and the restoration of violated justice, then such a war is considered necessary.

And what thoughts does this retrospective look lead us personally to?? And the thoughts are extremely positive and encouraging.: humanity is moving faster and faster along the path of humanization! Yes, the massive use of conventional weapons by all forces and means continues, Yes, in some places even now on several distant islands there are still those, who eat their enemies! But there is progress, and this is a trend!

So the doctrine of military ethics has very deep roots and develops along with human civilization., and the purpose of this doctrine is, to give a basis for the thesis, that war, as an evil, can still be morally permissible and justified.

And this basis gives us the theory of just war (just war) how the development of this doctrine. "Yes, such a war can be allowed, and justified,” says this theory, but subject to the fulfillment of a number of criteria, to be fulfilled, for such a war to be considered just.

These criteria are divided into two groups.: right to war (right to war) и jus in bello (proper behavior in war).

The first group of criteria concerns the moral grounds for starting a war., and the second group of criteria concerns the very morality of behavior in war. Criteria jus ad bellum (right to war):

- the reason for joining the war must be just;

- although all parties to the conflict may have rights and disadvantages, to overcome the presumption against the use of force injustice, from which one side suffers, must greatly exceed the injustice, from which another suffers;

- only properly created and functioning state bodies can wage war (a just war must be initiated by political power within the political system, which allows for differences of justice);

- force can only be used in a truly just cause and exclusively for this purpose (repairing the damage caused by evil is considered the right intention);

- weapons cannot be used in a useless business or in case of, when disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

force can only be applied after, how all peaceful and viable alternatives will be fully tried and exhausted or explicitly rejected and can also be understood, that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful and proportionate concessions;

- the expected benefits from waging war should be proportional to the expected evil or harm from it.

In modern conditions, a just war is fought in self-defense or in defense of someone else..

As soon as the war started, just war theory (just war) also defines, as members of the armed forces of the opposing sides (combatants) must and must not act:

- the just conduct of war must be governed by the principle of distinction (hostilities must be directed against opposing combatants, not against civilians, caught in circumstances, which they did not create.

Prohibited activities include: bombing of civilian residential areas, which do not include legitimate military purposes; committing acts of terrorism or reprisals against civilians or prisoners of war; attack on neutral targets.

Besides, combatants are not allowed to attack opposing combatants, who surrendered or were captured, or who have been injured and do not pose an immediate lethal threat, or who have parachuted out of disabled aircraft and are not airborne troops, or who were shipwrecked);

- the just conduct of war must be governed by the principle of proportionality (combatants should strive, to damage, caused to civilians or civilian property, was not excessive in relation to a specific military advantage or an expected attack on a legitimate military objective);

- the just conduct of war must be governed by the principle of military necessity (attack or other military action must be aimed at defeating the enemy, this must be an attack on a legitimate military facility, and damage, inflicted on civilians or civilian property, should be proportional, and not excessive in relation to such civilians and property);

— combatants, surrendered or captured by the opposing side, no longer a threat, so to torture them or otherwise mistreat them is unfair;

combatants may not use weapons or other methods of warfare, which are considered evil, such as mass rape, compelling combatants of the other side to fight against their own country or using weapons, the consequences of which cannot be controlled (eg, nuclear/biological weapons).

And now, after reading this, try to answer your own questions: the leadership of our country did the right thing in this situation? Are the Russian Armed Forces conducting combat operations correctly??

I think, the answer is obvious - yes! Especially realizing, that real modern Nazis and outright scum are fighting from the Ukrainian side, who do not recognize or observe any rules and customs of war.

Everything flows, everything changes

Mankind has fought wars ten times more often, than lived a peaceful life. One and a half thousand wars and almost four billion victims in six thousand years.

From the first documentary written evidence for 5000 years BC (Early Kingdom of Ancient Egypt, the ancient Chinese state of Shan-Yin, Uruk period of Sumerian civilization) and to the present, the military affairs of all states have fundamentally changed, starting from the rules for developing a strategy and up to a plan for conducting a separate operation. Military affairs developed - martial art also developed.

There is a direct relationship both in the ways and methods of warfare, and in tools and devices for its conduct from the level of social development of human society, who waged war.

As written by E. Toffler "people throughout the history of mankind fought in the same way, how they worked". That is, differently. Stones and clubs. Spears and bows. Bronze Age and the advent of iron. Shields and armor.

As time went.

First phase transition: invention of gunpowder and firearms. The next two phase transitions in military affairs changed absolutely all previous rules:

- invention, mass industrial production and mass combat use of military equipment (automatic firearms, aviation, tanks and armored vehicles, submarines and battleships);

- invention, mass special industrial production of nuclear weapons and their means of delivery (silo and mobile missiles, submarine and air missile carriers), biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.

Now we are witnesses and participants of the fourth phase transition. Information-telecommunication and computer technologies, weapon, based on new energy principles, information and psychological operations - all this together forms the space of a new network-centric war.

New war, new weapon, and now changes in military affairs lead to the emergence of new practice and theory in the art of war. And again, Russia is a direct participant in this process.. And our SVO determines new trends in military affairs.

But to understand these trends, need to understand the concepts of "military affairs", "military art", "troops" and "troop control", "types of troops" and "combat operations". This must be done in an accessible way., simply, with examples for comparison from history and modernity.

However, more about this in our next articles..

Mikhail Pospelov,

A source



0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
0 comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments