In the domestic philosophical tradition, the origin of wars is considered as a multifactorial process. Question about the type of army of modern Russia

CHAPTER 14 Military geography INTERNAL REGIONS of the COUNTRY the central part of the territory of the country, not included in the boundaries of the theater of operations. Within its boundaries there are important administrative, political and industrial centers, rear and military facilities, and the corresponding groupings are located.

CHAPTER 15 Military Pedagogy COMBAT EXPERIENCE stable practical knowledge and skills acquired by command personnel, headquarters and troops (navy forces) in the course of combat operations. Accumulates and consolidates in a combat situation. It is one of the important qualities that contribute to

CHAPTER 3 THE SCIENCE OF WORKOUT Do you think all the world's knowledge of sports, the world's best coaches, the best equipment, will help you win a gold medal? No. But the absence of the above factors will help you not win

Chapter 6. TO THE NATIONAL MILITARY DOCTRINE Russia of the future will need armed forces for new types of wars 1. Ensure the people's right to life Ensuring the defense of Russia is one of the most important duties of the country's leadership and its ruling elite. From whether he can

Science See also “Knowledge”, “Theory. Hypothesis”, “Scientists”, “Experiment” Science is the best way to satisfy personal curiosity at public expense. Lev Artsimovich Art is "I"; science is "we". Claude Bernard * Life is short, but science is long. Lucian

POLITICAL FEATURES OF WARS

AND ARMED CONFLICTSXXICENTURY

Study questions:

1. War as a socio-political phenomenon.

2. The role of politics in the preparation of wars and military conflicts XXI century.

Researchers have long noted that war is one of the most rapidly developing historical phenomena. War has reached developed forms much earlier than peaceful relations. It was, is and will be a powerful locomotive of historical progress, despite the blood, death, horror that it brings with it.

The war within the 20th century has undergone the most profound changes in socio-political and military-technical content, the nature of the weapons used, the scale, destructiveness and destructiveness, and the impact on the life of society.

1. War as a socio-political phenomenon

The war, by its roots, character, and destiny itself, is connected with the epoch that is being lived through. It is impossible to understand war without understanding the epoch - this idea of ​​Clausewitz has become an axiom of scientific military thinking. However, today, from the height of the third millennium, and especially for understanding the political prospects of war in the 21st century, understanding the correspondence between the content of the war and the content of the era seems insufficient.

The now dominant concept of war was born of industrial civilization. It arose in the era of machine production, social-class and interstate antagonisms, during the period of the cult of armed violence, the domination of mass armies formed on the basis of universal military service.

The military events of the last third of the 20th century give serious grounds for believing that the world is entering a new generation of wars aimed not so much at the direct destruction of the enemy, but at achieving political goals wars without battles of mass armies. It is quite obvious that there is a need for a new understanding of the relationship between war and armed struggle, the place and role of armed violence in the content of war, and the significance of direct and indirect military operations in its course and outcome.

The fact that a new era of "non-belligerent" wars is coming, in which political goals are achieved not through direct armed intervention, but through the use of other forms of violence, undermining the power of the enemy from within, is evidenced by the "cold war". Its results and outcomes led to large-scale geopolitical shifts, regrouping of forces, coalitions, alliances, creation of new politically influential regions, formation of about 30 new states. And all this without a single “hot” shot.

The political nature of the war takes shape long before it starts, its seeds are hidden in past and current politics.

World history teaches that no war arises suddenly out of nothing (out of the void), by itself, spontaneously. Wars mature, as a rule, for many years, at least for several years. They are prepared by socio-economic and political groups (parties), states that are interested in this.

An analysis of the political features of the past wars of the 20th century and those predicted in the 21st century shows that in most cases they are due to a number of circumstances:

the entry of the most developed countries into the information stage of development and a new information and technological stage in the development of military affairs;

the development of the theory and practice of “controlled warfare”, the development of a strategy of “indirect actions” (it was confirmed that military goals can be achieved not by direct, but by remote military or non-military actions);

the emergence of new high-precision long-range weapons, which are close to nuclear weapons in their effectiveness, but do not have negative environmental consequences of use, and the transformation of nuclear weapons into weapons of deterrence;

the emergence of new types of threats to military security, especially international terrorism.

In scientific works, there are three main approaches to identifying the sources of war, which have historically developed and are constantly manifested: pluralistic; limited pluralistic; monistic. For example, pluralistic approach It is expressed in the recognition of an essentially unlimited number of various causes (a large complex-system of causes), and their "list" is continuously updated with new ones. According to this approach, practically any differences between members or parts (groups) within a society or between different societies, their coalitions can be the sources of wars: economic, political, geographical, anthropological, biological, etc. A variation of the pluralistic approach is the now widespread civilizational theory of the origin of wars.

An analysis of this approach shows that it essentially removes the issue of preventing, and even more so, excluding war from the life of society, since in practice it is impossible to eliminate significant differences between civilizations, countries, peoples, social groups, etc. The history of world civilizations shows that differences, peculiarities, contradictions will take place as long as humanity exists. Moreover, these differences, features, peculiarities and contradictions, as scientists convincingly prove, are the most important factor in mutual enrichment, development, and progress.

World history teaches that war – a socio-political phenomenon, which is one of the forms of resolving socio-political, economic, ideological, as well as national, religious, territorial and other contradictions between states, peoples, nations, classes and social groups by means of armed violence. War is generated, first of all, by deep socio-political and socio-economic reasons, which are of an objective-subjective nature. It leads to a qualitative change in the state of all spheres of public life: social, political, economic, military and spiritual. The main and decisive means of waging war are the armed forces, as well as other troops, military formations and organs, and irregular troops (militia formations and units, partisan detachments). Therefore, considering war as a socio-political phenomenon, it can be argued that it is the creation of the mind and hands of man. Indeed, man invented war, developed it, brought it to the point that it became the main threat to his existence as a species.

The history of man, according to world scientists and analysts, is largely the preparation and conduct of wars. The periods when peace would reign on the whole Earth are so imperceptible that they can practically be neglected. So, for example, in the period from 1055 to 1462. Russia was completely 245 invasions. Of the 537 years that have passed since the Battle of Kulikovo until the end of the First World War, Russia spent 334 years in battle. At the same time, the history of the Russian state testifies that the overwhelming number of wars against it fell on the period of the formation of statehood, its unstable international position and the Time of Troubles.

Many political scientists and analysts believe that war will never leave people's lives. It is still largely a mystery why, throughout most of history, up to the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries, man was more concerned with “improving” war than building a secure world. War, accompanying a person's life, could not but have an impact on his evolution, on socio-political, spiritual and moral values.

This chapter will examine the proportion of political factors among other factors that shaped the qualities of man as the creator of wars. And also how the development of war and man are politically interconnected, how their mutual influence changes, what are the trends in man's attitude to war, what can be expected in this area in the 21st century and the third millennium.

In modern literature, there are three groups of approaches in the context of our questions.

To first group refers to the campaign, which is based on the fact that a person is by nature aggressive, warlike, pugnacious, and this resulted in a war. For example, the English psychologist Storr proved in his writings that the human brain has a special physiological mechanism that causes aggressiveness.

To another group refers to an approach that, on the contrary, claims that by nature a person is peaceful and good-natured, and militancy is instilled in him by the conditions of life, forced involvement in wars, and the process of socialization of individuals. So, in particular, K. Lorenz and J. Tinbergen in their scientific works put forward and substantiate versions that a person was originally a harmless omnivore that did not have any natural adaptations for hunting large animals (claws, fangs, poisonous sting, etc.). as well as for killing individuals of their own species. At the same time, they emphasize that he did not have biological mechanisms that deter him from deadly actions. At the same time, the development of production has placed in the hands of man the weapons of murder and the means of their rapid improvement, which, in the absence of biosocial containment mechanisms, led to the unlimited development of military affairs and to the threat of a nuclear apocalypse.

To third group refers to an approach that proceeds from the fact that society consists of both genetically militant and peace-loving people by nature, the numerical ratio between which and the impact on the life of society can be very different: the predominance of any of these groups (absolute, large, significant, insignificant), approximately equal, etc. At the same time, the attitude of society and the state to war and peace depends on the strength and influence of these groups. Moreover, I would like to note that throughout history, the proportion of warlike people has rapidly expanded.

Of particular interest are the different views of scientists on the role of war in human evolution. These views can be generalized and grouped into several groups.

First group highlights the positive impact of war on the overall evolution of man. For example, Ch. Darwin, a world-famous naturalist, creator of the theory of the origin of man from apes, was one of the first to connect the improvement of the type of man with war. Many of his followers developed the idea that wars were the driving force behind human evolution. The birth and development in the human head of the “idea of ​​war”, its implementation, the organization and conduct of military operations, the need for special weapons, the armed struggle itself revolutionized man, gave rise to a shift in his physiology and intellect, gave depth and spatial scope to thinking, awakened ingenuity, initiative and ingenuity. In addition, in the works of some thinkers of the past, we find an emphasis on the exceptional role of war in the development of such high moral and psychological qualities in a person as courage, courage, selflessness, solidarity, corporate spirit, mutual assistance, etc. Thus, in particular, the German philosopher M. Scheler considered war to be the only specific sphere for the formation of the heroic principle in people, and only fighting warriors were possible heroes. K. Clausewitz wrote that only war gives rise to a high spirit, courage and courage in a person, and peaceful conditions, supposedly, develop only pampering in people, and therefore the elimination of war from the life of society would lead to the moral degradation of mankind. R. Bichilow, R. Pitt and others in their works prove that wars improved human nature, contributing to the survival of the most viable groups and individuals, led to the appearance in a person in the course of anthropogenesis of a disproportionately large and highly perfect brain, approved the spirit of solidarity and mutual assistance. F. Nietzsche wrote that humanity would become worse if it forgot how to fight. He tried to philosophically measure, compare the impact of war and peace on a person and believed that war and courage have done more in history than peace and love for one's neighbor. One of the theorists of German militarism, G. Treichke, argued: "It would be a mutilation of human society if we removed war from the world."

Second, - the opposite point of view consists in recognizing the absolutely negative role of war in human evolution. One of its main representatives can be called P. Sorokin, who, for example, believed that the most healthy, capable and morally perfect people die in wars, that wars contribute to the survival of physically and morally defective people, cynics, selfish people, criminals and thereby degrade the human gene pool. In his writings, he compared the war with a gardener weeding from the ridges the best vegetables and leaving weeds to multiply. Particular emphasis in the scientific works of this group is placed on the fact that in wars the very life of a person is depreciated, the spirit of encouragement prevails. mass murder people, criminal inclinations are cultivated - cruelty, bloodthirstiness, a tendency to destroy and destroy material and spiritual values, the desire for robbery, etc. After each war, humanity becomes worse in all respects, especially moral.

Third group scientists, overcoming the extremes of the two previous ones, proceeds from the contradictory socio-political impact of war on the evolution of man: in some respects it stimulates his progress, in others it causes degradation. In their opinion, for example, a revolution in military affairs, which has given rise to a qualitatively new material and technical base of war, stimulates the intellectual and technical abilities of a person, and the increasing lethal and destructive power and range of modern weapons dulls humanistic and ethical feelings. At the same time, many scientists, proceeding from the contradictory socio-political impact of war on a person, associate it with the nature of the war: whether it is fair or unfair, legal or criminal, defensive or aggressive-aggressive. Here, for example, as the well-known philosopher of the 19th century V.S. Solovyov: “The war was a direct means for the external and indirect means for the internal unification of mankind. Reason forbids throwing this tool away while it is needed, but conscience obliges us to try so that it ceases to be needed and so that the natural organization of humanity divided into warring parts really passes into its moral or spiritual organization.

World history teaches that every war is a consequence of the interest in them of influential and powerful socio-political groups and strata. Without the determination to fight these groups, there can be no military clashes. In other words, there are social groups and strata of society that act as a sort of parents of wars. A society striving for peace must be able to distinguish between these "parents" and develop the necessary tools for this. For they have common features and characteristics: the desire to achieve their goals by any means and methods, regardless of the social cost; solve their problems at the expense of others, their robbery, suppression, subjugation or destruction; unwillingness to take into account the legitimate interests of other social groups; willingness to destroy everyone along with them, but not to sacrifice their values; life according to the principles - "it is better to be dead than red (white)", etc.

Under these conditions, it should be noted that the negative impact of wars primarily affects the size and quality of the population. So history shows that the loss of people in wars continuously increased, especially in wars new history. Losses increased especially rapidly in the world wars of the 20th century. The greatest jump in wars in the 20th century is explained by the rapid degradation of secular culture, the loss of values ​​as a restraining force. “There is not a single value,” wrote P. Sorokin, “that would bind equally the Nazis and anti-Hitlerites, communists and capitalists, poor and rich, believers and atheists ... Force and deceit become the main norms of behavior.”

At the same time, as history shows, it is political factors that are called upon to play a decisive role in overcoming the war, although it is they that contain the grounds for maintaining it, for example: the existence of political communities, institutions interested in maintaining the war as a real or potential instrument of politics; the predominance of traditional power thinking and power politics among the current ruling political elites and statesmen; the focus of states on strengthening their military power, improving armies and weapons, military-technical rivalry, strengthening their leading role due to powerful power potential. Also in In 1986, for the first time in Soviet military doctrine, it was stated that the prevention of war is the highest goal, the core of military doctrine, the main function of the Soviet state and its Armed Forces.

An analysis of foreign and domestic state regulatory legal acts in the field of national security shows that modern military construction retains much of what was characteristic of the times of confrontation between the West and the East. In addition, I would like to note that at present a certain tradition has developed, closely related to the works of the famous American sociologist of Russian origin P. Sorokin. In particular, he identifies a number of indicators of the impact of wars on society, namely: change in the number and quality of the population, the state of the economy (the economy of the country), moral and legal relations, education, science and culture. Moreover, each indicator has a very “fractional” structure. Thus, changes in the number and quality of the population caused by the First World War and the Civil War are considered by him from various positions: direct losses(killed, maimed and died from wounds on the fronts - one quarter of all those who died); indirect(an increase in mortality, a decrease in the birth rate, death from starvation, difficulties, epidemics, etc. - three-quarters of all those who died); loss of territories with their population, deterioration of health, biological, neuro-brain, creative and creative degradation of the nation, degeneration of man in general.“Changes in the structure of the social aggregate” are seen in the increased contrast between wealth and poverty: the decline in the living standards of the majority of people, the restriction of the rights and freedoms of citizens, the displacement of huge masses of people, the militarization of public life, the expansion of state intervention in all spheres of life, including family life.

In addition, many historians and political scientists, analyzing US wars in the second half of the 20th century, note that their cruelty and aggressive nature are not consistent with true democracy. It is also known that American democracy is very "authoritarian" in terms of unleashing wars, threats and other uses of force and gives room for arbitrariness. Prominent scientific experts and political scientists write, for example, that the main reason for J. Kennedy's decision to start a war in Vietnam was the desire to restore the shaken prestige of the United States after the failed invasion of Cuba in April 1961 near Playa Giron. People's lives in the name of prestige - such is the price of American-style democracy (events in the Persian Gulf, Grenada, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc.).

History teaches that aggressive invasions, the desire of many states to profit at the expense of Russia, to squeeze and weaken it, to remove it as an obstacle to expanding their influence and power, affirmed in the mass consciousness of Russians a sense of alertness to everything that happened and is happening near its borders. Mistrust, suspicion, vigilance towards the behavior of other states, especially the most powerful and active on the world stage, accumulated. These moods and feelings fueled the desire to be on a par with the largest states in terms of military strength, unconditional support for building up the military budget, strengthening the army and navy. It has been customary for many centuries to single out real or potential military opponents in the surrounding world, as well as an intensified search for allies, participation in blocs created by other countries and building their own, helping other peoples in waging mainly liberation wars. However, despite this, society and country, due to their gullibility and carelessness, often found themselves unprepared in the face of sudden invasions.

At the same time, it should be noted that as wars developed, the importance of political factors increased not only as factors in ensuring the high spirit of the people and the army, as one of the means in the fight against enemies, but also as a relatively independent sphere of confrontation. Russian thinkers predicted that over time, material wars with their horrors, blood and murders would be replaced by spiritual wars, the "war of spirits." The struggle, the movement, the historical rivalry will remain in them. But the methods of struggle will be more subtle and internal, compared to the too coarse and external methods of material warfare. But even then the pain of movement and struggle will remain. Happy peace, blessed Eclibra will not come. Good spirits will fight evil spirits with finer and more perfect weapons. At the same time, it is noted that the sources of spiritual wars are aggressive, violent, messianic cultures of expansionist civilizations and states. The Cold War between the USSR and the USA in the second half of the 20th century is called the prototype of such wars.

Under these conditions, it is necessary to recall the words of Alain Dulles, the former chief of the US CIA, which he wrote during the first stage “ cold war”, defining the tasks of the fight against Russia and outlining the most optimal and effective way to solve them. In particular, he wrote: “Having sowed chaos in Russia, we will imperceptibly replace their values ​​with false ones and force them to believe in these false values. How? We will find our like-minded people, our assistants and allies in Russia itself. Episode after episode, the grandiose tragedy of the death of the most recalcitrant people on earth will be played out; final, irreversible extinction of his self-consciousness. From literature and art, for example, we will gradually eradicate their social essence. We will disaccustom artists, we will discourage them from engaging in depiction, the study of those processes that take place in the depths of the masses of the people. Literature, theaters, cinema - everything will depict and glorify the basest human feelings. We will in every possible way support and raise the so-called creators, who will plant and hammer into the human consciousness the cult of sex, violence, betrayal - in a word, any kind of immorality. Honesty and decency will be ridiculed and will not be needed by anyone, will turn into a relic of the past. Rudeness and arrogance, lies and deceit, drunkenness and drug addiction, animal fear of each other and shamelessness, betrayal, nationalism, enmity of peoples, above all enmity and hatred for the Russian people - we will cultivate all this deftly and imperceptibly. And only a few, very few will guess or understand what is happening. But we will put such people in a helpless position, we will turn them into a laughing stock. We will find a way to slander them and declare them the dregs of society.”

As a result of the Cold War, a significant change in the balance of power took place in the world, and a fundamentally new world order was established. The bipolar world turned out to be destroyed. The socialist center of power has left the historical arena. The system of socialism and its military organization gasped. The Soviet Union broke up into separate states. As a result, only one center remained in the world - the West, led by the United States. The world order, despite the assertions of many political scientists, has become unipolar. Today Russia is relegated to the background in the US priorities. It should be noted that the American political elite is still dominated by the views formulated in the first half of the 20th century by the classics of the Anglo-Saxon geopolitical theory H. Mackinder and N. Spykman. In accordance with these views, the Atlantic forces led by the United States should control the so-called Rimland, which includes all of Europe west of Smolensk, the Near and Middle East, Transcaucasia, South and partly Central Asia and the western coast of the Pacific Ocean, as well as Lenaland, a geopolitical term denoting sparsely populated territories of the Russian Far East, the Baikal region, Yakutia and the autonomous regions of the Far North. Control over Rimland and Lenaland, by design, will provide the Atlanticists with dominance over Hortland - European Russia and Siberia, which, in turn, will mean the world domination of the Western financial oligarchy.

Based on these pseudoscientific postulates, modern American geopolitical thought introduces a significant amount of Russophobia into the ideological and military-political practice of Western countries, aggravated by the action of subjective factors. In particular, the fact that the leading ideologists of the US policy towards our country are not native Americans, but cosmopolitan-minded people, for whom the US is nothing more than a mechanism for carrying out geopolitical experiments and historical revenge. We are talking here about a group of first-generation emigrants from countries of Eastern Europe, predominantly of Jewish nationality, such as G. Kissinger, M. Albright, Z. Brzezinski and others, distinguished by zoological hatred of everything Russian.

In this situation, the question involuntarily begs: “How long and stable will a single-lane world be?” In domestic and foreign scientific and popular literature, the most common point of view has become, according to which a unipolar world will be a transitional stage to a multipolar world structure. Today and in the near future, of course, the United States remains the hegemon in the world. Their superiority in the main indicators of power over any of the countries and even over possible groupings of countries is too great. A united Europe could challenge the United States in this sense in the near future, but given their strategic commonality, this is unlikely.

But at the same time, it must be remembered that the modern world is not only unipolar, but also multi-level, hierarchical. In addition to one superpower, it also has several "great" powers (second-tier countries). This includes Japan, China, Germany, England, France and, with certain reservations, Russia. Apparently such a world order will remain in the visible future. Although it is possible that such a balance of power can be destroyed and the world will again become bipolar. The most likely contender for the role of the second center of power will be China. It has been sustaining a high level of growth for a long time, turning into a demographic, economic and military giant.

Potential allies of China may be the countries of Southeast Asia. Given that the United States and China possess nuclear weapons, it is logical to expect their long-term confrontation. True, this turn of events is one of the real possibilities. The other will not be related to China's struggle for hegemonic positions. After weighing the pros and cons (including the price for acquiring the status of a superpower according to the experience of the USSR), China can limit itself to getting a special place in the unipolar world under the auspices of the United States.

At the same time, the politician Zb. Brzezinski never tires of repeating that after the crushing of communism in Russia, the main task is to destroy Orthodoxy.

Thus, we can conclude that one of the main political factors of the war are culture, art, spiritual and moral values ​​of a person.

Many prominent thinkers, including N. Berdyaev, V. Solovyov, I. Ilyin and others, believed that peace between states and peoples, as well as within them, would be achieved only when the fragmentation, opposition and confrontation of cultures were overcome, when their convergence will lead to the creation of a single world culture. The current world (as a real relationship) should be the result of an internal spiritual, moral, cultural world, peace-loving convictions of people. This requires a spiritual and cultural rebirth of mankind, a moral condemnation of the war by all people. In this regard, now many scientists, based on universal threats to the very existence of mankind in the 21st century, are increasingly raising the question of creating a new culture - a “culture of survival” - and the so-called innovative human education so as not to perish.

The current degradation of culture makes Russia more vulnerable to existing military dangers. To explain the stable moral and psychological expansion of a number of Western states against Russia, many world analysts often use a civilizational approach. So, for example, analyzing the causes of "terrible pressure from the Western world, which took the painful form of military strikes against Russia", the outstanding historian of the 20th century A. Toynbee believed that this is a consequence of the expansiveness inherent in all civilizations (the desire to expand borders, replenish labor , assimilation of neighbors), which manifested itself most strongly in Western civilization due to its exceptional economic, scientific, technical, military, and demographic dynamism. At the same time, I would like to note that under the slogan of “civilization” of Russia, its “westernization” is now being carried out, the Western model of the socio-political structure of the state, fashion, customs, and especially the American way of life are forcibly implanted.

Under these conditions, we must not forget that states that did not care about preserving and building up the culture, education, spiritual and moral forces of the people, or indifferently looked at their destruction, doomed themselves to death. Unfortunately, something similar is happening in today's Russia.

BULLETIN OF THE ACADEMY OF MILITARY SCIENCES

№ 2(23)/2008

V. Yu. Balabushevich

professor of AVN;

A. I. Gursky

Honorary Worker of the Higher

professional education of the Russian Federation,

Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor,

professor AVN

On the question of the interaction of philosophical knowledge and military affairs

Various aspects of the problem considered in this article were actively discussed by researchers in the 60-80s of the XX century. But the collapse of the USSR, the change in worldview, political, ideological, economic and other guidelines, the state of permanent reform of the political system and military organization of Russian society pushed the problems we identified to the periphery of philosophical and scientific interests.

However, the logic of the development of military-political processes, the actualization of the tasks of ensuring the country's military security objectively require a discussion of the place and role of philosophy in relation to the field of military affairs. The authors submit their views on this issue to the readers' judgment, hoping for their interested discussion by the scientific military and philosophical community.

In the context of our reasoning, military affairs are considered as a specific sphere of human activity related to the preparation and conduct of wars and armed struggle. We will proceed from the fact that military affairs include two areas (spheres) that closely interact and interpenetrate each other - theoretical and practical. With regard to the present stage of development of military affairs, it is expedient to speak of the contradictory unity of military theory and military practice as two sides of a single whole.

At the everyday level, one can often hear statements that the phenomena of philosophy and military affairs are so far from each other that they have no points of contact. It is assumed that philosophy and military affairs are different aspects of serving the society, differing in their goals, content, methods and results of activity and personified in different people.

But let's not rush to final conclusions. Let's pay attention to the facts lying, as they say, "on the surface":

Many philosophers turned out to be not alien to the practice of military affairs and, fulfilling their civic duty, proved themselves to be excellent warriors, let us recall, for example, Socrates and Plato1;

The formation of military-theoretical thought proceeded with the active participation of philosophers, for example, Xenophon of Athens, one of the students of Socrates, wrote a treatise "On the management of cavalry";

Gradually it became clear that the objects of study of philosophers and military theorists may overlap; such phenomena as social violence, war, peace, armed struggle, the army have always attracted the attention of Western and domestic thinkers (I. Kant, N. Machiavelli, K. Marx, F. Engels, V. S. Solovyov, N. A. Berdyaev, I. A. Ilyin and others); in the general array of philosophical knowledge, such specific areas as “philosophy of war”, “philosophy of the army” were structured over time;

Military theorists have often risen to the level of philosophical generalization of the results of studies of war and armed struggle as empirical phenomena; it can be argued that the military-philosophical ideas of the German general Carl von Clausewitz2 largely predetermined the direction and nature of the military-philosophical discourse of the 19th-20th centuries;

Acting as advisers to political leaders, and even in the role of politicians themselves, entering into various expert groups, councils, futurological centers, philosophers have influenced and continue to influence the development of military affairs through the formation of military doctrines, the foundations of military policy and military-political strategy;

On the other hand, the military, coming into political power, infiltrating the political elite of society, have the opportunity to exert a certain influence on the functioning and development of the entire spiritual sphere of society, including philosophy;

Finally, one can cite the statements of military professionals that testify to their high appreciation of the importance of philosophical knowledge; so Alexander the Great recognized the great influence on him of the philosophy of his teacher, Aristotle: “I honor Aristotle,” the commander said, “on a par with my father, because if I owe my life to my father, then Aristotle owes everything that gives her a price”3.

The above examples allow us to formulate a conclusion that is fundamental for our further reasoning: the idea of ​​philosophy and military affairs as distant and non-contiguous spheres of activity is deeply erroneous. In fact, philosophy and military affairs closely interact within the framework of a single whole - society.

Philosophy is inextricably linked with the theory and practice of military affairs - this circumstance is often underestimated by both representatives of philosophical thought and professional military men. Philosophers usually politely refer to their preoccupation with traditional philosophical problems and the impossibility, therefore, of condescending to opportunistic political and military problems. And the military insists that philosophy is “useless” for them, since it has no real use on the battlefield. However, in our opinion, both of these positions do not stand up to serious criticism. Supporters of the first of them can be objected that there are no forbidden or undesirable topics for philosophy. Adherents of the second position can be reminded of the trivial truth: "there is nothing more practical than a good theory."

In the first approximation, it may seem that the interaction of philosophy and military affairs is due exclusively to subjective circumstances, namely, internal spiritual impulses and motivations of representatives of the philosophical and military "shops". But the interaction of philosophy and military affairs is not connected only with the interest of certain philosophers in the phenomena of war and military affairs, or with the individual sympathies of individual military specialists for the world of philosophy. Such a foundation would be too fragile and unreliable.

In fact, the processes of interaction between philosophy and military affairs are determined, first of all, by factors of an objective nature that require more careful consideration.

War and military affairs arise during the period of the decomposition of the primitive system and the transition to an early class society. Initially, military activity was of an exclusively practical nature, but certain knowledge always functioned within its framework. As military practice became more complex, the amount of knowledge needed to conduct armed struggle also increased. Old, wiser warriors begin to perform the functions of preserving and transmitting military knowledge. Because of this, new generations of warriors can use the experience of their predecessors, reproducing certain already existing patterns of military activity. Broadcasting the experience of military-practical activity is possible only if such specific activity arises, where the object is not a "living enemy", but knowledge about the means and methods of its destruction. The main product of such military-spiritual activity is the description of the activities of the subjects of military practice, which makes it possible to reproduce this activity in new conditions and with the maximum possible efficiency. Thus, military knowledge is separated from military practice, turns into a kind of superstructure on top of it and begins to serve its needs.

The emerging military knowledge initially functions in a religious-mythological form. However, a contradiction is gradually emerging between the religious and mythological form of the existence of military knowledge and the needs of society in the improvement of military affairs, the internal logic of its development. This contradiction is resolved on the paths of rational knowledge of the phenomenon of war and armed struggle. Already since the VI-V centuries. BC e., we can talk about the first attempts to theoretically comprehend the war and military affairs.

But as soon as military-theoretical activity becomes isolated as an independent type of spiritual activity, there arises an objective need for its own comprehension and methodological support. This mission is undertaken by philosophy, which acts as a free and universal theoretical reflection (i.e., reflection) on the whole culture, all its content and all the tendencies of its development. And by analogy with the fact that, in order to serve military-practical activity, military-theoretical activity necessarily arises, so, in turn, military-philosophical activity, which ensures its uninterrupted and effective functioning, is necessarily “built on top” of military-theoretical activity.

The arguments we have cited testify to the fact that the interaction between philosophy and military affairs is conditioned by both subjective and objective factors.

Let us further pose the question of the nature of the influence of philosophy on military affairs. The connection between philosophy and military affairs is, in principle, of the same nature as the connection between philosophy and any area of ​​concrete theoretical knowledge and practical activity. The impact of philosophy on military affairs is ambiguous and can be specified in relation to its structural elements. Let us first consider what role philosophy plays in relation to military theory, and then we will solve a similar problem in relation to military practice.

Military theoretical activity is notable for its diversity, but it finds its concentrated expression in the development of military science, which occupies a leading place in the system of knowledge about war. The object of military science is war, and its subject is, first of all, armed struggle and methods of its conduct.

Science is a sphere of specialized activity of people to obtain objectively reliable knowledge about reality. To understand the mechanism of the influence of philosophy on science, one should consider the general structure of scientific knowledge. It includes two levels of scientific research: empirical and theoretical, as well as the foundations on which they are based4.

At the empirical level of the study of armed struggle, its external properties and signs are reflected in the conditions of direct contact of the researcher with the objective reality of war. Empirical knowledge exists in the form of judgments.

The theoretical level of research is the next stage in the knowledge of armed struggle, which takes place in the absence of direct contact with objective reality. At the theoretical level, the essence of armed struggle is realized, its cause-and-effect, structural-functional, spatio-temporal, genetic and other types of connections are recognized. Theoretical knowledge exists in the form of a system of categories, laws and principles.

Foundations scientific activity include three main components: the ideals and norms of research, the scientific picture of the world and the philosophical foundations of science.

The first block of the foundations of science is the ideals and norms of research activity, which express ideas about the goals of scientific activity and ways to achieve them. The ideals and norms of military scientific research are conditioned by the general level of development of society, the need for an adequate understanding of the phenomenon of war, the political and other interests of certain classes and social groups, the philosophical and ideological culture of the researcher, and the extreme complexity of war as an object of knowledge.

The second block of the foundations of science is the scientific picture of the world. In the development of modern scientific disciplines, a special role is played by generalized schemes - images of the subject of research, through which the main systemic characteristics of the reality under study are fixed. These schemes can be called a picture of the reality under study. Military science cannot solve the tasks facing it without relying on such generalized, systemic characteristics of war and armed struggle as its most important subsystem. The formation of such schemes is impossible without philosophy.

The third block of the foundations of science is the philosophical foundations of science. The philosophical foundations of science should not be identified with the general array of philosophical knowledge. Of the huge number of philosophical problems and options for their solution, science uses as substantiating structures only some philosophical ideas and principles that are in demand for a theoretical explanation and understanding of the phenomenon of war in given specific historical conditions.

Philosophy, realizing its functions, takes an active part in shaping the foundations of military science, permeates the entire process of studying war and armed struggle at its empirical and theoretical levels.

result military scientific knowledge military-scientific knowledge appears, the structure of which can be divided into three levels: 1) empirical knowledge about armed struggle; 2) theoretical knowledge about armed struggle; 3) philosophical conclusions and generalizations (a kind of "superstructure" over the first two levels).

Thus, philosophy influences not only the process of “acquisition”, but also the process of “processing” of already acquired military-scientific knowledge, ensuring the process of its “fitting” into broader systems of knowledge about social reality.

Military thought since its inception has been associated with the development of philosophy. The philosophical views of military theoreticians have always acted as the methodological and ideological basis of their military views, have given a certain direction to the development and improvement of military thought, and have enriched it. And in this sense, it can be argued that the union of philosophy and military science is a necessary condition for the knowledge of war, armed struggle and military affairs as a whole.

It is quite natural that a military theoretician cannot and should not deal with the entire volume of philosophical knowledge accumulated over the two and a half thousand years of the existence of philosophy. The researcher always focuses on very specific philosophical teachings, uses the methodology developed within the framework of certain philosophical schools, trends and directions, comprehends the results obtained, based on certain philosophical paradigms.

The pluralism of philosophy makes possible the existence of different approaches to the consideration of the problems of war and armed struggle. The acceptance by a military theoretician of certain philosophical schemes (primarily ontological and epistemological) as initial ones largely predetermines the logic of military scientific research, its tools, the results obtained and their interpretation. Let's look at some examples.

The military theoretician's orientation toward the principles of philosophical materialism or philosophical idealism has far-reaching consequences and leads to diametrically opposite conclusions regarding the relationship between the material and the ideal, the objective and the subjective in war and armed struggle. Ultimately, completely different versions of the solution of questions about the origin of war as a socio-political phenomenon arise; the mechanism of generating a particular war; the reasons for victories and defeats, the driving forces, the essence and content of war; the place and role of armed struggle in the general structure of war; the ratio of man and military equipment; the dialectic of the means and methods of armed struggle, the essence and structure of the military power of the state and the combat power of the armed forces, etc.

The choice between epistemological optimism and epistemological pessimism, carried out in the process of cognition, also has a serious impact on the explanation and understanding of the phenomena of war and armed struggle. Proponents of epistemological optimism proceed from the fundamental cognizability of the phenomena of war and armed struggle, insist on the ability of the human mind to reflect the objective laws of the emergence, functioning, development of war and armed struggle, despite the exceptional complexity of these phenomena. Theorists, who share the principles of epistemological pessimism, declare the failure of all efforts to understand the essence of war and armed struggle. The war was, is and will be a mystery to man, they believe, if we can know anything about the war, then our knowledge will be limited only to the outer side of the war; human ideas about war are always incomplete, inaccurate, changeable.

Acceptance by the researcher of the positions of rationalism means his unconditional faith in the strength and power of the knowing mind, his ability to make a breakthrough from ignorance to knowledge in the field of war and military affairs, and rely on theoretical studies of the phenomena of war and military affairs. And, on the contrary, the solidarity of the researcher with the attitudes of irrationalism implies distrust of the human mind, its creative possibilities. In this regard, mysticism, intuition, insight, etc., come to the fore as means and methods of understanding the phenomena of war and military affairs, and the value and effectiveness of theoretical research is questioned.

Much in the activity of a researcher also depends on his methodological choice in favor of dialectics or metaphysics. The dialectical approach to the phenomena of war and armed struggle makes it possible to understand the complexity, inconsistency, and dynamism of these phenomena, to reveal the complex system of internal and external relations of war and armed struggle. War appears before the follower of dialectics as a historically transient phenomenon, changing, being in the process of constant formation and development. If a dialectical researcher considers war in terms of its variability, then the metaphysically oriented view of a military theorist is aimed primarily at identifying aspects of stability in war and military affairs. Proponents of the metaphysical approach often consider war and military affairs as eternal, unchanging, non-historical phenomena. Thus, the famous military theorist and historian Antoine Henri Jomini (1799-1869) wrote: “The art of war has existed at all times, and especially the strategy was the same both under Caesar and under Napoleon”5.

The ideas of determinism and indeterminism have a significant influence on the theoretical understanding of war. Supporters of determinism are inclined to consider war as a causally determined social phenomenon, to recognize the existence of objective laws of war and armed struggle. The researcher, who shares indeterministic attitudes, sooner or later comes to denying the objective laws of war and armed struggle, absolutizing the role of chance and ignoring the role of necessity in the sphere of military affairs. The course and outcome of the war in this case is supposed to depend on the "game of chance". The German military theorist Karl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) argued: “War is an area of ​​chance ... The concept of law in the sense of knowledge in war is almost superfluous, because complex phenomena of war are not sufficiently regular, and regular ones are not complex enough ... warfare does not know statements that are sufficiently general, to earn the title of law."

The agreement of the researcher with the principle of scientism presupposes the recognition of the decisive role of science and its methods in the study of the phenomenon of war and in the transformation of military practice. Acceptance of the principle of anti-scientism leads, in the final analysis, to belittling the role of science in military affairs, de-intellectualization of the entire sphere of military activity.

Let us pay attention to two more circumstances of a fundamental nature.

First, no philosophical doctrine can claim to possess the ultimate truth. Thus, the opposition of materialism and idealism runs through the entire history of philosophy. Traditionally, some philosophical problems were considered more deeply within the framework of materialism, others - within the framework of idealism. It should be remembered that both materialists and idealists have made their worthy contribution to the treasury of human thought, to understanding the problems of peace, war and the army. In the past twentieth century, Russian military theory was largely based on the ideas and principles of dialectical materialist philosophy. The search for methodological guidelines was carried out, first of all, in the philosophical works of K. Marx, F. Engels, G. V. Plekhanov, V. I. Lenin, their students and followers. However, one should not forget about the original military-philosophical ideas formulated by the representatives of Russian idealism - V. S. Solovyov, N. A. Berdyaev, I. A. Ilyin and many others. To understand the most complex and dynamic processes taking place today in the military sphere, it is necessary to rely on all the wealth of world and domestic military-philosophical and military-scientific thought.

Secondly, one should distinguish between ideological and methodological pluralism in society and the possible eclecticism of the views of a particular individual. Pluralism, as a rule, testifies to the health of society, philosophy, and science; and the eclecticism of the views of a particular person is already a kind of “diagnosis”, indicating an insufficiently high philosophical and methodological culture of the individual. If a researcher has in his head a continuous hodgepodge of ideas, thoughts, principles belonging to various philosophical traditions, methodological schools, then this is eclecticism. The mechanical connection of the unconnected, the unprincipled juggling of principles under the slogan of pluralism, cannot bring us closer to an adequate understanding of war and armed struggle.

It is quite possible to agree with the point of view of the well-known Russian military theorist, Professor S.A. Tyushkevich: “Knowledge of the laws of war (and armed struggle) essentially depends on how fully and comprehensively the war as a historical, socio-political phenomenon is studied, how correctly its driving forces, contradictions, etc. are identified; on the degree (measure) of understanding the essence and dynamics of diverse relations in society, especially the problems of peace and war, trends in the development of international relations; from the chosen methodology, the civil position of the researcher, his moral qualities”6.

Military practice is of particular importance in the system of military affairs. From the point of view of philosophy, practice is a purposeful, subject-sensory activity of a person to transform material systems7.

Military practice acts as a complex multifaceted, contradictory and dynamic area of ​​social practice. In terms of content, military practice is a unity of the practice of armed struggle, as well as military-economic, military-political, military-medical, military-economic, military-sports and other types of practice. The practice of armed struggle, being a kind of core of military practice, includes combat practice (wartime practice) and combat training practice (peacetime practice).

For our reasoning, it is important that practical activity can be considered as a complexly organized network of various acts, in which the subjective and objective (objective) sides are distinguished. In other words, activity is regulated by both subjective (ideological, moral, psychological and intellectual state of people as subjects of activity) and objective (living conditions of people who are not subject to their consciousness) factors. Subjective and objective factors are closely related. Their role and relationships may differ significantly in relation to different types and activities and in relation to the experienced time.

Let us consider in more detail the regulation of military-practical activity by subjective factors and trace the place and role of philosophy in this process.

First, activity is always governed by certain values. Value is determined by the answer to the question: “what is this or that activity for?”.

Value is for a person everything that has a certain significance, personal or social meaning for him. Man lives in a world that is a world of values. In a certain sense, it can be said that value expresses the mode of existence of a person. But around him and in himself, a person, as a rule, finds a lot of value orientations, sometimes poorly coordinated with each other, and a lot of opinions about the world, some of which for some reason are considered true, while others are false8. A person is doomed to a situation of constant choice, he makes this choice and bears responsibility for it to himself and other people. This is where, regardless of the individual attitude of the individual to philosophy, the traditional philosophical problems associated with the identification of the ultimate foundations of human existence arise.

The world of values ​​is diverse and inexhaustible. The individual accepts or rejects this or that system of values, modernizes, transforms, adapts it to the conditions of individual existence. Focusing on certain values, a person searches for the meaning of life. What we call the meaning of life is, in essence, a personal interpretation of the system of values ​​that function in society. And the nature of the interpretation itself is determined by the philosophy that the subject uses, maybe even in an implicit form.

The value preferences of the individual paint his activity in certain colors, significantly transforming its quality and efficiency. Performing the same "work", individuals can exist in absolutely different dimensions, in different "worlds". Thus, in terms of content, the activity of the subjects of military practice is largely of the same type, and its “value dimension” is largely individualized. In the process of combat activity, a person kills other people using the most advanced killing technologies. But at the same time, each participant in the armed struggle has his own idea of ​​what he actually does. One person believes that he is defending his homeland, its freedom; the second - carries out the order; the third - earns money for his own existence; the fourth - saves his life; fifth - asserts its superiority; the sixth one satisfies their lowly needs for violence, etc. It is hard to expect that these people with weapons in their hands, but with different value preferences, are capable of the same dedication on the battlefield. It is unlikely that a mercenary who sees in war only a means of enrichment is able to rise to the level of sacrifice of a warrior protecting the future of his family, people, culture.

Meaningful life problems arise in any field of activity, but they are especially significant for the military sphere - after all, a military man solves the tasks set by the state, in conditions of constant risk to his own life. The military profession requires from a person complete dedication, the ability to sacrifice in the name of the interests of the state, high spirituality and a clear life position.

An officer must be able not only to appropriately decide the question of the meaning of his own life, to develop a certain system of values ​​for himself, but also to form the value orientations and guidelines of his subordinates. The commander teaches and educates the personnel entrusted to him. And the more effectively he does this, the greater the force will be the military team he leads.

Secondly, activity is largely determined by its goals. Goal - answers the question "what should be obtained in the activity?", the goal is the ideal image of the product (the result of the activity); it is embodied, objectified in the product, which is the result of the transformation of the subject of activity.

Goal-setting is an integral aspect of activity. The goals of the activity are formed on the basis of needs and interests. A need is a person's need for objects necessary for his existence, acting as the basis of people's activities, an incentive to perform certain actions. Being realized, the need turns into interest. Interest is the result of the subjectivation of needs, the interest of the subject of activity in something.

Military-practical activity is characterized by the utmost decisiveness of the goals facing its subjects. This applies both to the aims of war as a whole and to the aims of armed struggle. As the goals of combat practice, for example, one can name: a) the destruction of the enemy or the infliction of unacceptable damage to him; b) protection from the armed influence of the enemy.

The subject of military practice in the process of goal-setting faces a number of problems that require philosophical reflection. These issues include:

a) the problem of the adequacy of goals to the objective conditions of activity and the capabilities of the subject of activity - we are free to choose the goals of activity, but this freedom is limited by objective, i.e., circumstances beyond our control (this is how the goals of military development are determined by the military-political leadership of the country in accordance with the nature of external and internal military threats, the economic and other capabilities of the state and, among other things, depend on the adequacy of assessments of both threats and the ability to respond to them);

b) the problem of the relationship between goals and means to achieve them - a military professional must formulate his own position regarding two fundamental problems: is the formula “the end justifies the means” fair in relation to military practice? and is it permissible to advance military-political and combat goals in the absence of adequate means to achieve them?;

c) the problem of the "price" of success - any soldier knows that combat orders are not discussed, but carried out, but achieving the desired result "at any cost" can discredit the goal itself; everyone knows the expression "Pyrrhic victory" - a victory that does not justify the sacrifices incurred for it, and it is no coincidence that the wise strategist M.I. Kutuzov in the difficult 1812 abandoned the defense of Moscow in the name of saving Russia;

d) the problem of choosing priority goals of activity - the subject of activity, as a rule, does not deal with one goal, but with a certain “set” of goals; therefore, there is a need to determine the sequence of the implementation of the goals, to identify the "main link" so as not to scatter the available forces and resources.

Thirdly, the nature of the activity largely depends on the knowledge, skills and abilities mastered by the subject and answering the question “how can the activity be carried out?”.

The philosophical culture of an officer provides him with the opportunity to solve a number of problems:

Mastering the already developed and tested methods of activity in a particular sphere of reality;

The choice of methods of activity that are adequate to the set goal, value attitudes, objective and subjective conditions of being;

Construction of new, unparalleled in past experience, methods of activity, or a combination of old, previously used methods and techniques;

Evaluation of the effectiveness of the methods used and making appropriate adjustments to the methodology used;

Identification of methodological aspects of various activities9.

Naturally, the quality of the solution of these tasks by an officer may be different. It depends on whether his activity will be dominated by a pattern, schematism, or whether he will be capable of initiative, creativity on the battlefield, in the process of training personnel. Recall that military practice is characterized by the unity of search (creative) and standardized (stereotypically mechanical) practice, with the former predominating.

The work of an officer is complex and multifaceted. But, first of all, he appears before us in two guises: as a military manager (combat leader) and as a teacher (leader and organizer of the process of training and educating subordinates). It is quite possible to agree with the remark of the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): “Two human inventions can be considered the most difficult, namely: the art of managing and the art of educating…”10. Accordingly, in the structure of an officer's professional training, the mastery of the methodological foundations of precisely managerial and pedagogical activities comes to the fore.

Fourth, the direction, character, and effectiveness of activity are influenced by the psychological state of the individual, the features of the functioning of his consciousness.

Philosophy is, first of all, reflective thinking. Mastering the methodology of reflective thinking is of exceptional importance for a military specialist. The ability for deep introspection, adequate self-assessment is one of the professional qualities of an officer. Low self-esteem leads to disbelief in one's own strengths, overestimation of the enemy's capabilities, uncertainty and timidity in organizing hostilities, managing subordinates on the battlefield, and exaggerated attention to the formal side of things. Inflated self-esteem, on the contrary, leads to self-confidence, complacency, underestimation of the enemy and the adoption of voluntaristic, adventurous decisions. Only a balanced assessment of one's own potential, a deep consideration of one's own strengths and weaknesses, strengths and weaknesses (and weaknesses, as is known, are a direct continuation of our strengths) enable an officer to effectively fulfill his diverse and difficult duties, avoiding both dogmatism and voluntarism.

In addition, it should be borne in mind that many of the problems that a serviceman faces have an internal rather than an external source. A person often “suffers not from the fact that he cannot cope with external problems, but from the fact that he cannot cope with himself, with his thoughts, with his consciousness. Therefore, the solution of external problems is given to him with such difficulty. Consequently, a military professional must be fluent in the methodology of introspection, control of their mental and spiritual states.

Fifthly, the unconscious acts as a regulator of human activity and behavior.

For a long time, philosophers viewed man as an exclusively rational being. It was assumed that his behavior, activities and being itself are due solely to the mind, intellect. But it turned out that human consciousness is an insignificant fragment of human subjectivity. According to Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), only a small part human soul illuminated by the light of consciousness. The main array of mental activity remains unconscious.

The line between the conscious and the unconscious is very fluid: what was previously unconscious can be realized, and what was the subject close attention on the part of the mind, it can go into the shadows. With time, a person can comprehend his emotions, intuitive guesses, understand the motives of his sometimes insufficiently considered actions. On the contrary, with the formation of "automatisms" they are transferred to the sphere of the unconscious (the development of skills in performing combat techniques, loading and unloading weapons, using protective equipment, etc.). The foregoing does not mean that in the case of unconscious acts a person does not receive the necessary information from the outside world. It's just that it is not realized, being processed and used at various levels of the central nervous system, including the subcortex and spinal cord.

It is philosophy that helps to learn about the nature of the unconscious (it must be admitted that we know very little about ourselves and about the deep layers of our own psyche), its content and functions, to understand the place and role of the unconscious in military practice, makes it possible to take into account the factor of the unconscious in the process of planning combat activities.

In order to adequately assess the influence of philosophy on military-practical activity, one should pay attention to the person as the subject of this activity. Understanding the extraordinary complexity of man has always been inherent in religious and philosophical thought. Even within the framework of the Judeo-Christian tradition, three parts of a person were distinguished as a holistic phenomenon: spirit, soul and body. Let us illustrate this idea from the point of view of the problems we are considering.

Spirit is a sphere of values ​​and ideals of a non-utilitarian nature. In the spirit, a person rises to the definition and understanding of the highest values, mentally freeing himself from the routine of everyday life. The result of a spiritual search is the formation of principles that a person considers unshakable and for the sake of which he is sometimes ready to sacrifice his life. The words of General Dmitry Mikhailovich Karbyshev (1880-1945), who died in fascist dungeons, but did not betray his homeland, are widely known: “Principles do not fall out along with the teeth from a lack of vitamins in the camp diet.” Many theoreticians and practitioners of military affairs are inclined to regard the dependence of the course and outcome of a war on the state of mind of the opposing sides as one of the objective laws of war. Here, for example, is what the outstanding Russian philosopher Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin (1883-1954) said about the role of the ideological, spiritual component of military affairs: but its moral mortification and spiritual perversion. That is why military training is absurd and disastrous outside the spiritual education of a person ... a warrior outside spiritual self-affirmation is a real danger to his homeland and his state.

The soul is the sphere of direct experiences, impressions, thoughts of a person. The soul is more subject to fluctuations, more mobile and contradictory than the spirit. The actions of a soldier and military collectives take place in the most difficult conditions: an immediate threat to the life and existence of subjects of military practice; the burden of psychological responsibility, the special "price" of mistakes on the battlefield; "maliciousness" of the enemy; dynamism of the situation, etc. Under these conditions, much depends on the "state of mind" of a person in war. A military professional in the most difficult situation must be able to control himself, control his thoughts, feelings, states. Faith in one's own strengths, capabilities, in the rightness of the cause that a warrior serves, allows him to perform genuine miracles, and we can find a huge number of confirmations of this in the history of wars and military art: from the three hundred Spartans of King Leonidas, who stood in the way of the Persian army of Xerxes, to twenty-eight Panfilov heroes who blocked the way for fascist tanks to Moscow. Purposeful work on the psyche, consciousness of soldiers and military teams, maintaining the mental health of military personnel is one of the main activities of commanders and superiors, and its methodological basis is, first of all, the philosophical doctrine of consciousness, philosophical anthropology.

The body is the material side of a person. The bodily characteristics of a warrior have a significant impact on the effectiveness and quality of his combat activity.

It is philosophy that helps to solve the problem of the mutual dependence of the spiritual, mental and bodily principles in a person. In the history of philosophical thought, this problem is usually formulated as the question of the relationship between mind and body. It is quite obvious that the subject of military-practical activity is not an incorporeal (incorporeal) spirit and not the body itself (a biological organism). As such a subject, a person should be considered in the unity of his spiritual, mental and physical sides. From this follows the idea of ​​a comprehensive (integral) approach to the process of training and education of personnel.

A soldier is a person who must kill other people on the orders of the state, in the name of the state, to do it as efficiently as possible, using technologies specially developed for this purpose, and ready to die while performing the tasks assigned to him. But domestic military-philosophical thought has always proceeded from the fact that a warrior is not a mechanism for killing, but a citizen, a patriot of his homeland, living the same life with his people and doing hard work for the sake of their future.

Thus, of the three human structures that we have identified, two (soul and spirit) are directly affected by philosophy, and the third (body) is indirectly affected.

Having considered the influence of philosophy on military theory and military practice, let us move on to final generalizations.

A retrospective look at the development of military affairs convinces us that the influence of philosophy on military theory and practice is not a figment of the fantasies of the philosophers themselves, but a reality. In some cases, this influence is quite obvious - a military theorist or practitioner quite consciously identifies with certain philosophical ideas and uses them as an ideological and methodological basis for his activity. Thus, the influence of Hegel's idealistic dialectics on the military-theoretical views of K. Clausewitz, the influence of Marxist philosophy on the military-theoretical ideas and military-political activity of J.V. Stalin, etc., is relatively easily revealed.

In other cases, the influence of philosophy on military affairs is not so obvious and is detected with great difficulty. The fact is that “a person lives in a world of social patterns that set him the main trajectories of his behavior”13. A person is, as it were, in the force field of many social normative systems, being their participant, they determine his attitude to the world14. This is something we often forget about. It often seems that when choosing goals, means and methods of action, we proceed only from our free will and the properties of the objects included in our activity. But this is not entirely the case. Our actions are largely determined by social normative systems, traditions, and historical experience. Philosophy permeates all the structures of culture, and, mastering them in the process of socialization, the subject absorbs many philosophical ideas and principles, often without even realizing this fact.

In realizing its functions, primarily ideological and methodological, philosophy largely determines the direction, effectiveness, and creative nature of military theory and practice. Analysis shows that the influence of philosophy on military affairs is quite significant, although it is not always obvious. In this regard, the authors attempt to formulate some recommendations.

First, it is necessary to strengthen the alliance between philosophy and military science in every possible way. The Academy of Military Sciences and the authority of its President, General of the Army Makhmut Akhmetovich Gareev, can and should play an extremely important role in solving this problem. As the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Army General Yu. Baluyevsky, speaking at the reporting and election meeting of the Academy of Military Sciences, a serious scientific understanding is required, based on the results of in-depth systematic research, of the entire modern military-political situation, the role and place of Russia in modern world, geopolitical and geostrategic conditions for ensuring the security of the country today and in the foreseeable future, the prospects for the construction and development of the Armed Forces and the military organization of the state as a whole15.

Secondly, the most serious attention should be paid to the development of the philosophical doctrine of peace, war and the army, without which it is impossible to adequately comprehend modern military-political problems and military-political forecasting. A step in a positive direction could be the revival of our country's traditional philosophical discussions on the problems of peace, war and the army with the involvement of the widest range of specialists in various fields of knowledge. The tone for these discussions can be set by such authoritative researchers as V.I. Gidirinsky, A.I. Dyrin, B.I. Kaverin, V.I. Nechaev, P.V. Petriy, V.V. Serebryannikov, S.A. Tyushkevich, N.A. Chaldymov. We see the resuscitation of the activities of the military-philosophical section of the Philosophical Society of the Russian Federation as another long overdue step.

Thirdly, the time has come for serious investments in the intellect, the methodological culture of military professionals. I would like to believe that the time of survival for the Armed Forces is ending and the era of development is beginning, which requires completely different approaches and criteria in the training of military personnel. Today, the price of mistakes and the measure of responsibility at all levels of military command and control are immeasurably increasing, the future belongs to officers who, within the framework of their duties, can see the situation of choice, make this choice competently and are ready to take responsibility for the consequences of this choice.

Fourthly, it is required not in words but in deeds to implement the principle of humanization of military education. In particular, the "washout" of the humanitarian component of the curriculum of the higher military school should be stopped. Otherwise, the forecast contained in the report “Senior Officers of the Russian Armed Forces in 2025”, prepared by the US military department, may become a reality: “Colonels of the Russian army in 20 years will be distinguished by great ambitions and low intellectual abilities”16. The translation of the problem of the humanization of military education into practice will require a revision of existing programs and thematic plans for a number of disciplines, up to changes in state educational standards, taking into account the characteristics of a higher military school. There is a need to hold a competition for the preparation of a textbook on philosophy for higher military educational institutions, which will deeply illuminate military philosophical problems.

Fifth, we consider it necessary to immediately restore the military pedagogical faculty of the Military University, which will make it possible to prepare a new generation of military educators and researchers with fundamental philosophical, scientific, special and military training.

Sixth, the work of leading military universities, postgraduate courses, and postgraduate courses at civilian universities should be stimulated to train scientific and pedagogical personnel working on problems of ensuring the country's military security.

Notes:

Diogenes Laertes. About the life, teachings and sayings of famous philosophers. 2nd ed. - M.: Thought, 1986.

Clausewitz K. About the war. 4th ed. T. 1. - M., 1937.

Volkov G. At the cradle of science. - M., 1971.

Philosophy of science and technology: Proc. allowance / V. S. Stepin, V. G. Gorokhov, M. A. Rozov. - M., 1995.

Jomini G. Essays on military art. T.1. - M., 1939.

Tyushkevich S. A. Laws of war: essence, mechanism of action, factors of use. - M., 2002.

Alekseev P.V., Panin A.V. Philosophy: Textbook. Ed. 2nd. correct and additional - M., 1997.

Kuznetsova N. I., Rozov M. A. Consciousness and the problem of man // Philosophy. Materials for completing educational tasks at an authorized course / Novosibirsk Humanit. institute - Novosibirsk, 1996.

Balabushevich V.Yu., Gursky A.I. Methodological culture of an officer and the problems of its formation in higher military school // Bulletin of the Academy of Military Sciences. - 2005. - No. 1 (10).

Kant I. About Pedagogy // Treatises and Letters. - M., 1980.

Shapovalov VF Fundamentals of modern philosophy. To the results of the 20th century: A course of lectures for students and post-graduate students of humanitarian specialties of universities. - M., 1998.

Ilyin I. A. On the essence of legal consciousness. - M., 1993.

Rozov M. A. On the methodology of the analysis of the phenomenon of the ideal // Philosophy. Materials for completing educational tasks at an authorized course / Novosibirsk Humanit. institute - Novosibirsk, 1996.

Zaitsev A., Khorunzhiy N. Social portrait of a Russian officer // Izvestia. - 2005. - June 29.

To comment, you must register on the site.