In 2030, Russia will colonize the moon: cosmonauts will build a lunar base and laboratory, and long-range lunar rovers will explore the lunar surface. Such were the plans of Roskosmos quite recently (they, however, had to be adjusted). President Vladimir Putin, who will be 78 years old in 2030, may retire from active duty or run for a fourth (consecutive) presidential term. By that time, there will be 5 million fewer Russians, the economy will be larger, but not by much. What will be the position of Russia in the international arena?
Unpredictability has obviously become an integral part of the Russian way of acting in the world. Just as obvious is the trend towards a tougher and militarized foreign policy. Behind this toughness is the desire to rethink the principles of the European security architecture and turn Russia into a power that everyone must reckon with.
The second - and equally important - basis for a resolute Russian foreign policy is the need for a new legitimation of the Putin regime in the domestic Russian context. The economic growth that once underpinned Putin's legitimacy has ceased and will never be as strong again. Putin seeks to divert attention from economic problems and make Russian militarism his new pillar. To a certain extent, confrontation with the West is in the interests of the Kremlin; the existence of a hostile world serves as an excellent pretext both for decisive action in foreign policy and for strengthening control in the domestic situation.
The good news is that Russia, in our opinion, is not looking for a full-fledged military confrontation with the West. Russia is ready for mid-level conflicts that are serious enough to serve as a distraction from internal Russian affairs and a lever to achieve high international status, but do not represent the risks and costs associated with a full-scale war. The bad news is that mistakes and miscalculations are inevitable and tensions are unlikely to subside unless the Kremlin finds an alternative model of legitimacy.
A new report by the European Council on Foreign Relations attempts to understand how Russia and its (and European) neighbors will develop up to 2030. The method is to extrapolate today's trends. This is not an attempt to predict the future. The only thing we can be sure about in 2030 is that there will be a huge number of unforeseen events. The purpose of our study is to highlight current trends and their logical implications. Some of the trends we have identified are as follows.
1. Internal problems will grow, and the Kremlin will play the card of conflicts.
Since Putin became president in 2000, the unwritten social contract with Russians has been one of continuous improvement in the quality of life. For eight years, Russians enjoyed incredibly fast economic growth based on high oil prices. Average earnings jumped from $60 in 1999 to about $940 in 2013 (according to Kirill Rogov's report “Will Putinomics Survive?”). According to the World Bank, in 2002 a quarter of Russians lived below the poverty line, and 10 years later, only about 10% of the Russian population.
But today this social contract is falling apart. The Russian economy will emerge from a period of negative growth within two years, but growth, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit, will remain at the level of 1% per year. By 2030, Russia will move five steps down in terms of economic size, becoming the 15th in the world. According to the UN, the population of Russia will decrease by 5 million by that time - to 139 million people.
Sanctions will play some role in this reduction. But Russia's main problems are structural. Russia has not modernized and diversified and is unlikely to do so in the near future. Corruption, underdevelopment of the rule of law and failures in governance hinder the flow of investment. To change this, painful measures are needed, which the Kremlin will not take, especially given the 2018 presidential election. Putin has shown that he is not interested in economic issues. Even if the price of oil returns to $50-60 per barrel, Russians should not expect improvements in the quality of life similar to those of the 2000s.
The Kremlin is addressing this problem by seeking to base legitimacy on nationalism and adventurism in foreign policy. Small victorious wars, such as those in Crimea and Syria, give legitimacy, divert attention from the economy, and paint for the public a picture of Russia's return to great power status. But they must remain low-budget, like the Syrian one, which Putin himself said was carried out with funds previously budgeted by the Ministry of Defense for exercises and combat training in 2015. "Distraction" wars do not have to be truly combative. The Russian pseudo-war with Turkey is an example of a "non-military war".
2. Russia will increasingly rely on force.
Based on experience gained in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria, Moscow has realized how effective military force is as an instrument of foreign policy. Moscow has also seen how reluctant the West is to confront, not to mention the reciprocal use of force. Today's Kremlin leaders are generally better able to act with the help of hard power than with the help of "soft power", which Russia has little in any case. Despite the fact that Russia is now experiencing difficulties with the continuation of the modernization of the armed forces, the accumulated power is enough to create an advantage in relation to most states in the region.
Russia will build up the possibility of deploying expeditionary forces, but this potential will be limited to the post-Soviet space and those regions of the Middle East and North Africa where Russia has connections - Syria, Libya, possibly Egypt.
The Russian military will continue to focus on NATO and the region. Given the unsustainable costs and the real risk of a nuclear confrontation, Russia is unlikely to seek a full-fledged war with the West. But the Kremlin, despite this, is interested in sending signals of readiness for a large-scale escalation. The danger is that miscalculations and unforeseen situations can quickly escalate into a military confrontation.
What are the potential opportunities for mid-level “fiscal” conflicts in Eastern Europe?
Baltic Sea. The likelihood that Russia will take the risk of testing NATO's mutual obligations for strength is low. Most likely, actions will be taken that “do not reach” the threshold of military confrontation at the level of Chapter 5 of the NATO charter. The continuation of confrontational actions on the part of Russia will only lead to increased support for the entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO on the part of the civil society of these countries.
Balkans. Over the past two years, Moscow has built a strategic alliance with Serbia and stepped up its support for the Republika Srpska. This project is both budgetary and promising in terms of "hybrid" hostile actions that hinder the implementation of EU goals in the region.
Central Asia. A succession crisis in any of the states in the region could provoke ethnic conflicts and force Russia to intervene. Another possibility is that Russian military intervention could be justified by the threat of jihadists in the region.
3. Russia's main target will remain Eastern Europe.
Russia will continue to make attempts to establish control over its closest neighbors. Obedient neighbors are seen as a key condition for Russia's security and a condition for restoring the status of a great power. The maximum program is a ring of friendly states obedient to Moscow. The minimum program is dysfunctional states ruled by corrupt elites, unable to reform or join NATO and the EU, and thus subject to Moscow.
To date, Moscow has provided a high level of dependence for Armenia, Azerbaijan and Belarus. This dependence, however, is not absolute. Moscow will continue to pursue its "minimalist" goals in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, while not resigning itself to the loss of "friendly feelings" on the part of the population of these countries. Moscow will continue to use various methods to achieve these goals: political pressure, regional institutions (CSTO, Evrazes), hybrid hostilities, information attacks, cyber attacks.
Moscow will not be able to implement the maximum program in Ukraine, the conflict in Donbass will be frozen. This will reduce tension, but create an unstable situation in the region. For now, the strategy is to use the Minsk agreements to push the Donbass rebels into Ukrainian politics. "Hot" hostilities will also be continued for the sake of putting pressure on Kyiv, burning Ukrainian resources and reducing the willingness to fight.
Conclusion. Europe can do very little to help in any way in resolving Russia's economic problems. The modernization of the Russian economy should be initiated by the Russians. Once the time comes to ease sanctions, the goal of this move should be to try to make the voices of Russian reformers more heard.
Europe must beef up its deterrent, but in doing so it faces a security dilemma. A tough response will play into the hands of the Kremlin: increased tensions will force the West to take Russia seriously and elevate it to the very quality it wants, along the way feeding the narrative of a hostile world surrounding Russia.
Dialogue remains extremely important, but it must be built in the right way. If the current background of mid-level conflicts continues, open channels of communication with Moscow will be necessary to avoid fatal miscalculations. The policy of the West should ensure that those red lines are kept, the crossing of which can move conflicts from the middle level to the higher ones. It is also necessary to create incentives for any actions leading to a reduction in tension.
The West must take Eastern European sovereignty seriously. But this attitude will be a challenge to local elites who need to be pressured to transform patronage political systems into full-fledged democracies. The most difficult thing for Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova is to overcome themselves and carry out reforms, and not to overcome Russia. They cannot take the European development trajectory for granted. The EU needs to be much more candid about the purposes on which it bases its support. Europe's ability to support reforms in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Belarus is extremely limited, although Europe must be ready to provide such support and rapprochement with these countries if they undertake appropriate reforms. Europe, at the same time, must provide diplomatic support for the strengthening of the sovereignties of these countries in determining their belonging to alliances - both political and security.
Expert: all major wars were and are being fought only for resources
What is the world? It's a pause between wars, historians and political scientists cynically explain. Mankind has been fighting for centuries, changing the methods of destroying its own kind, naming completely different reasons as a reason for wars, but the reasons for all major wars in the world are the same - this is a battle for resources, the expert of the Masterforex-V Academy believes Evgeny Antipenko.
If we accept this concept, the logic of wars and world development becomes very simple and logical, both in understanding the past, the present and the near future. Below are the expert's explanations.
How does business rule the world, where, how and when have new wars flared up and may arise?
Under the primitive communal system, homosapiens killed each other for a convenient place for hunting or housing. Under the slave system, slaves became the main value and the main engine of the economy, and each conqueror sought to conquer a more populous country, capturing their slaves and free citizens turned into slaves. Under feudalism, wars began to be waged over lands inhabited by potential subjects, who subsequently had to pay rents in kind and money, plus (peasants) cultivate their master's land. In modern and contemporary times, with the advent of capitalist production, the goals of wars have noticeably expanded, as have their scales. Now, with the unlimited possibilities of factory production, they began to fight for resources, markets and control of trade routes. At the present time, which many call post-industrial, little has changed compared to the previous period. Despite all sorts of economic innovations (cashless payments, futures transactions, foreign exchange transactions, financial empires), the main value that makes entire armies move is that without which it is impossible to live, and that tends to end sooner or later. These are resources without which the economy can stop and the well-established social way of life in the country can collapse.
Real wars for resources began in the Age of Discovery (late 15th century)
These wars continued during the formation of sea powers (at that time the term was synonymous with superpower). The first such “mistress of the seas” was Spain, which, using a monopoly on the discovery of America, began to export not only gold, but also valuable agricultural crops (potatoes, tobacco, cocoa, sugar), becoming the first monopoly in Europe in their marketing, receiving from their sales are super profits. Her example was followed by other European states, seeking to snatch a “fatter piece” on the world map. Maritime countries were especially successful in this: England, whose main trophy was North America, Portugal (a significant part of South America, including Brazil), Holland, France, Denmark, Russia, Turkey. Small European states became real superpowers and masters of the markets, because they had a powerful navy. Russia and Turkey carried out overland, but no less powerful and consistent expansion, which turned out to be just as fruitful as that of the Europeans. So, Russia strengthened itself in Transcaucasia (modern Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia), in Central Asia (modern Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan).
Wars for the redivision of the world have become a logical continuation of the process
The first redistribution of the world took place at the beginning of the 18th-19th centuries, when it became clear who and how effectively managed to manage the resources received. At that time, countries with an advanced capitalist economy based on free hired labor were able to strongly oust the feudal agrarian Spain and Portugal. In this struggle, Great Britain and France succeeded significantly, seizing vast lands on all continents:
The biggest success of Great Britain at that time was the capture of India with all its riches, the victory over the French in Canada, taking control of all significant sea trade routes (the axis of Port Moresby - Sydney - Singapore - Hong Kong - Calcutta - Aden - Cairo - Cape Town - Gibraltar ). The British, thus, closed all more or less significant sea straits, except for Panama;
Britain's biggest failure was the independence of the North American colonies (modern-day USA).
The second redistribution of the world began at the end of the nineteenth century. and ended after World War I
It is associated with the emergence of young capitalist "predators" in Germany and the United States (then the USA). Then, after the completion of the industrial revolution in Europe and North America, coal, ore, and oil acquired special value. Everyone needed the colonies, and since there were no free places in the world, they had to fight for them with their neighbors. As a result, Spain lost its last colonies altogether, the Russian and Ottoman empires collapsed, Germany, putting everything at stake, was left with nothing, and only Great Britain, France and the USA won, and on a large scale:
The United States conquered the Philippines and Cuba from decrepit Spain.
Germany acquired colonies in Southeast and Southwest Africa.
The diamond rush in South Africa led to the Boer War. It was diamonds and gold that became the driving force behind the white colonization of Canada, the West Coast of the USA, Alaska, Australia, South Africa, and Siberia. This process was accompanied by a whole series of large and small military expeditions.
In 1911, the first Lord of the Admiralty of Great Britain, Winston Churchill, made the fateful decision to switch the navy from coal to oil, which increased the speed of battleships by four knots. Since then, the Lady of the Seas has sought to countries rich in oil. Here her interests invariably clashed with Turkish and German ones. Persia was immediately divided into spheres of influence, and European corporations immediately began to pump out "black gold" from there. English companies appeared in Baku at the same time.
With the outbreak of the First World War, the struggle for oil intensified. In 1914, the British captured Iraqi Basra, taking control of oil exports. In 1916, the Germans broke through to the Romanian oil fields in Ploiesti.
During the Russian Civil War, the first thing the British did was land in Baku to control the oil.
World War II was only an unsuccessful attempt at a new redistribution of the world by revanchist Germany and its ambitious allies - Italy and Japan.
For them, as you know, everything ended extremely unsuccessfully. The real redistribution took place during the 50-60s, when the weakened Britain and France were expelled from everywhere, and a wave of sovereignties swept across the planet. Since then, wars for resources have not stopped, just now so many countries have begun to participate in them:
During the Second World War, the strategic directions of strikes, as a rule, coincided with areas rich in resources. During the Winter War, Soviet troops wanted to quickly capture the nickel-rich region of Petsamo. The Japanese sought to Manchuria with its deposits of iron ore and Indonesia with its oil. The Germans, as you know, rushed to the oil regions of the Caucasus and Mesopotamia, as well as to the Krivoy Rog-Donbass region of Ukraine, rich in nickel, manganese and coal. The USSR and Great Britain hastened to send troops to Iran in order to take control of local oil.
After the end of World War II, the main winners (the USSR and the USA) began to support the movement for the independence of the colonies in every possible way in order to deprive the resources of the weakened Great Britain and France.
- In the future, both superpowers set all kinds of local leaders and their armies on their neighbors in order to win back areas rich in certain resources. So began numerous wars in Africa (Angola, Southern Rhodesia, Libya, Chad, Congo), Latin America, the Middle East.
- The last of these military campaigns was Iraq's attack on Kuwait, followed by its annexation. Needless to say, the main goal of Saddam Hussein was the oil industry of the neighboring country.
The fourth redistribution of the world was caused precisely by this attack and it is associated with the end of the Cold War and the establishment of the hegemony of one superpower - the United States
Now the "world policeman" offered everyone to fight with him, of course, for a share of the trophies received. The tactics of action with the help of a global military coalition was tested in 1991-92, during Operation Desert Storm. Since then, a queue has been lining up for the opportunity to conquer the resources of a particular country, and woe to those who did not have time. Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya can serve as excellent examples of this approach to war.
Afghan wars of the USSR and the USA: common and shocking differences
The Americans and their allies have been in Afghanistan longer than the Soviet troops. Today marks 11 years since the soldiers of the NATO coalition invaded the mountain ranges of Afghanistan. This is even longer than the military operation that the USSR carried out in Afghanistan lasted. The Rubicon, as they say, has been crossed and it is already possible to draw some conclusions, draw comparisons and parallels, and make predictions.
When Washington in 2001 introduced its troops into the "nest of world terrorism" in Afghanistan, only the lazy in the post-Soviet space did not exercise their wits about this, skeptically assessing NATO's chances. The Western world, on the contrary, arrived in an enviable confidence that they certainly would not repeat the mistakes of the totalitarian Land of Soviets and would achieve their desired goal in the foreseeable future. In Europe and America, it was believed that all sorts of comparisons between the Afghan wars of the USA and the USSR were inappropriate in this case. However, it has now become obvious that it is not only possible but necessary to compare the situation of the 1980s and 2000s: the history of the Afghan war has provided a huge amount of material that needs to be analyzed, compared and predicted.
What do the aggressor countries of the USSR and the USA have in common with respect to Afghanistan?
Experts identify a number of patterns:
- both the USSR and the USA at the time of the introduction of their troops into Afghanistan were superpowers. Their military potential was huge, which, in turn, made it possible to count on quick and unequivocal success;
2. both states were a kind of empires, that is, carriers of a supranational ideology. The USSR fought for the triumph of communism throughout the world, the USA for the victory of democracy. The armies of these countries were international, that is, theoretically, they could not be guided in their actions by nationalist motives;
3. both in 1979-80 and in 2001 the invasion was carried out with lightning speed and almost without bloodshed;
4. military personnel of the USA and the USSR were distinguished by high morale;
5. the command of both armies declared control over the entire territory of Afghanistan;
6. The number of OKSVA in different years ranged from 80 to 104 thousand military personnel (this does not count intelligence officers, instructors and civilian specialists). About 130,000 soldiers and officers are currently operating in the ISAF troops (this does not count supposedly civilian employees of various security structures);
7. Both the USA and the USSR installed a puppet government in Afghanistan, which they supported financially, unsuccessfully trying to put many hardships of the war on its shoulders.
As you can see, the initial data for the two states participating in the war in Afghanistan are approximately comparable. In the course of the activity itself, both certain similarities and significant differences were observed.
What is the difference between the Afghan wars of the USSR and the USA?
The experts explain that:
Many disparate detachments of Mujahideen fought against the Soviet troops with a variety of political views, religious predilections (Tajiks and Uzbeks are moderate Sunnis, Pashtuns are orthodox Sunnis, residents of the province of Herat are Shiites, Ismailism is widespread among the population in Badakhshan), ethnicity. The total number of armed opposition during the Soviet occupation is estimated at 300,000 to 500,000 people;
only one Taliban movement plus a small Al-Qaeda organization is now fighting against NATO in Afghanistan. The Taliban unites predominantly Pashtuns who profess radical forms of Sunni Islam. The number of Taliban is unlikely to exceed 100,000 fighters;
In the 1980s, the Afghan Mujahideen were supported by the United States, Pakistan, China, Iran, and all Arab countries;
Now the Taliban is given covert protection only by the Pakistani secret services, a little Iran and some Arab organizations. In fact, the Taliban are forced to rely only on the people of Afghanistan, and then only on certain tribes and ethnic groups. This is clearly not enough to conduct large-scale hostilities;
The USSR, which was the leader of the Warsaw bloc, still did not draw allies into Afghanistan: Poles, Czechs, Gedeerites, Bulgarians. This made it possible to rely solely on their own strength, to ensure unity of command and not to share responsibility. Even from a human point of view, such a step looks more noble (the Eastern European allies, however, did not appreciate this, but now they have the opportunity to taste all the “charms” of the Afghan war);
The United States initiated the entry of NATO troops into Afghanistan, since all the member countries of the Alliance fully supported such a decision. Now Afghan warriors will appear in more than 20 countries, including even non-NATO Australia and New Zealand.
The results of the operation can be called twofold:
On the one hand, neither the USSR nor the USA were able to achieve their goals in Afghanistan. Socialism was not built, Bin Laden was not caught, Al-Qaeda was not destroyed, democracy was not spread, it turns out, only people were lost in vain;
On the other hand, the loss figures are largely incomparable, which gives many experts grounds to talk about NATO's clear successes and advantages. During the 1980s, more than 15,000 Soviet servicemen died or died in Afghanistan, more than 53,000 were wounded and 417 went missing. At the same time, the troops of the international coalition have lost 6,900 troops to date and over 12,500 have been wounded.
In this case, the functionaries and analysts of NATO, in the absence of real successes, have to be content with little: they are proud not of bringing peace to Afghanistan, but of the fact that they lost fewer soldiers than the USSR. Allegedly, this clearly proves the effectiveness of the North Atlantic Alliance. But the difference in losses, of course, has an explanation.
How can one explain the difference in the losses of troops in the "Afghan wars" of the USSR and the USA?
As the experts explain:
Soviet troops regularly either carried out major military operations themselves, or entrusted them to local allies, tightly controlling the execution. In any case, combat activity in the 1980s was much higher than in the 2000s. Until the last days, a limited contingent tried to carry out important strategic tasks, for example, to block the border with Pakistan, to clear the Pandsher Gorge from Afghan rebels.
NATO soldiers for the most part practice defensive tactics, they control only the capital of the country, conditionally some major cities and communication routes (only about 10-11% of the territory of Afghanistan, while the Soviet army actually held 30-35% in their hands).
Soviet soldiers often performed tasks that were unusual for them: they built, helped in economic activities, etc. There were a lot of restrictions on the use of weapons.
Twenty years later, the Americans and their allies, professing the priority of the lives of their own servicemen, massively shoot to kill at the slightest danger, almost do not go beyond their well-fortified bases and try to avoid military clashes before the arrival of significant reinforcements. In fact, now only aviation and intelligence are fighting in Afghanistan, under such conditions, the loss of the coalition could be reduced to a minimum.
Soviet soldiers used local water, and as a result, the number of gastrointestinal diseases steadily increased. A significant part of the losses is due to this reason.
Americans and their allies consume only food delivered by planes from their home countries. Even water is brought to them in plastic bottles.
Thus, it is quite difficult to judge whose actions in Afghanistan are more effective. Of course, you can make forecasts, but they are also rather illusory. It is now quite obvious that
* the loss of the coalition in Afghanistan will only grow (already today the average annual figure is comparable to the Soviet one);
* Discontent in the NATO countries will also increase significantly, then the troops will be withdrawn, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan will again be engulfed in civil war, and it will finally plunge into the Middle Ages.
The question is: will the US fall apart “after Afghanistan” like the Soviet Union?
Of course not:
* The USSR collapsed not at all because of the Afghan war;
* Americans will think they won in Afghanistan. Residents of the United States never forget the main thing: to look at the world exclusively in a positive way.
A source - http://www.profi-forex.org/news/entry1008060808.html
What are they fighting for now and where can it “flare up” tomorrow?
The world is at the beginning of the so-called transition period, which has no precedents in history. Today it is already clear that development within a closed system of resources is impossible - the world is at the limit of its development:
1. Iraq, Libya. The wars there have already ended and they were fought mainly for oil, but also for gas. Now, mainly American (and a little British) companies are pumping energy resources from Iraq. While Libya is run by the French and the British. Russians and Chinese from these regions were “politely asked”, despite the fact that they used to feel quite confident there, hence the lessons of Iraq for those who want to see the future of Libya in a few years are logical.
2. Afghanistan. According to the reports of British geologists and the US Department of Defense, there are especially large reserves of lithium (the second after Canada), copper and iron. The total estimate of all these resources, according to rough estimates of experts, is more than 700 billion dollars. So, Afghanistan, contrary to popular belief, is not such a poor country.
- Syria not very rich in natural resources, but it is close to Iran, both geographically and politically. For this, apparently, she will have to suffer, losing her oil to the US and its allies and blockading Iran, which is now surrounded by US military bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.
4. Iran- Until recently, the second country in OPEC in terms of oil production. Objectively, it has colossal reserves of "black gold". The clouds around Tehran have been gathering for a long time, especially since he himself contributes to this (like the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein once did). Behind the attacks on Iran is the most powerful country in the world - the United States, whose energy needs account for more than half of the world's. It follows from this that a sovereign Islamic republic will have to try very hard to preserve its resources, and hence statehood.
5. South China Sea, which contains the disputed islands. But it is not at all because of these pieces of land that China, Japan, Taiwan and Vietnam constantly quarrel. According to preliminary geological estimates, it is there that the largest oil deposits in Southeast Asia are located.
6. Eastern Mediterranean harbors significant underwater deposits of natural gas. Explored deposits of this most valuable mineral are located in the adjacent territorial waters of Israel and Lebanon. It is for this reason that a new conflict in the Middle East may flare up.
7. Falkland Islands. British geologists recently claimed to have found oil there. And now, quite possibly, Argentina will once again recall its claims to these lands.
8. Sudan. The war between the southern and northern parts of the once united state can break out at any moment. The goal is banal: the capture of oil-rich provinces located on the border of two states that have enlisted the support of China and the United States, respectively.
9. Arctic. If warming continues at this pace, huge deposits of oil and gas will soon become available not only for research, but also for production. Now they are hidden under the thickness of ice, but very soon (with the level of development of modern technology) they can be reached. Now Russia, the USA, Canada, Norway and Denmark (the last four are NATO allies) are claiming significant shares of the Arctic shelf. What will happen next - we'll see. All other reasons - political, ideological, national, religious, monetary (dollar, euro, yen, pound sterling) - all this is secondary to the main reason - the struggle for resources.
The world is changing, but one thing remains the same - the battle of the superpowers for resources (oil, gas, gold, non-ferrous and rare metals), without which it is impossible to manage the world and "squeeze all the juice out of it" to obtain super-profits, power and a high standard of living in one's own country . Not without reason In terms of GDP, the United States is 7 times richer than Russia and 1.5 times China.
A source -Online magazine "Market Leader"
http://www.profi-forex.org/news/entry1008136210.html
Wars are different: religious, civil, cold, etc. But sometimes the instigators of military conflicts, ignoring noble goals, seek only personal gain.
The desire to provide their own economy with access to the necessary natural resources pushes states to unleash wars on completely far-fetched grounds. As the proven reserves of raw materials run out, countries have to fight for new sources, and common sense and diplomacy are not always the tools of such a struggle.
We present nine of the most famous military conflicts unleashed over resources.
Revolution in America and confrontation between Great Britain and France
vestifinance.ru
During the struggle of America for independence against the British crown in the 18th century, France provided active support to the New World. In this case, if the American people sought to free themselves from British dependence, then France with its fleet helped solely out of selfish motives, seeking to close trade routes and routes. France was interested in agricultural crops, the trade of which from America was previously controlled by London.
Battle of Plassey (India)
badnews.org.ru
The Battle of Plassey, or Palashi, was a landmark battle along the banks of the Bhagirathi River in West Bengal. On June 23, 1757, British troops inflicted a crushing defeat on the troops of the Nawab of Bengal, Siraj ud-Daula, on whose side France acted. As a result, the British took control of India's entire raw material base and trade supply routes.
American Civil War
territa.ru
Officially, the civil war in America was motivated by the struggle to free the country from slavery. However, one should not forget that it was slavery that underlay the production of cotton and most other agricultural products. The result of the civil war was a sharp shortage of cotton in Europe
Soviet-Finnish War
militarylib.com
One of the versions of the unleashing of hostilities between the Soviet Union and Finland in the first half of the 20th century was the need of the USSR for significant reserves of nickel for the needs of the defense industry. Finland meanwhile just possessed a deposit in Petsamo; By the way, one of the largest battles during the conflict, the Battle of Petsamo, is associated with the name of this particular area.
Japanese army attack on Pearl Harbor
jew-observer.com
Although the attack by the Japanese air force on the American fleet at Pearl Harbor cannot in itself be called a war, it was this event that served as the starting point for the United States to participate in World War II. However, it is unlikely that Japan sought to push the States in this way, but the goal could be the desire to completely destroy the advanced American naval forces. Thus, in Tokyo, under the patronage of Berlin, they sought to ensure control over the vast hydrocarbon reserves in Southeast Asia, as well as over ore deposits and food supplies.
The Great Patriotic War
1tv.ru
You should not try to fit the tragic years of the Second World War, and even more so the Great Patriotic War, into the framework of a simple theory of the struggle for resources. Nevertheless, the desire of fascist Germany to take control of the oil fields of Soviet Russia, significant sown areas, as well as mines and many other assets of our Motherland, should by no means be discounted.
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait
shorouq.livejournal.com
In 1990 there was a military conflict, which today remains one of the most controversial in recent history. Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime invaded Kuwait, accusing the latter of stealing oil. Under a completely far-fetched pretext, Baghdad sought to seize the oil fields of a neighboring state, destroy the oil industry of Kuwait itself, achieve a jump in prices for "black gold" and "one hand" pay off all of its huge debt accumulated during the war with Iran. Subsequently, the United States also joined the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait, whose share of interest in stable oil supplies was not in doubt.
Territorial disputes in the South China Sea
fondsk.ru
In the waters of the South China Sea, the situation is still extremely tense, and oil, as always, is the basis of disputes. The main participant in the conflict remains China, which claims its rights to the disputed islands; Japan, Taiwan and Vietnam are against Beijing on this issue. Taking into account the claimed rights, China has no less oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, so the position of the PRC in this case is quite understandable. But how the conflict will end is unknown. In recent years, military and political experts have increasingly pointed to an active build-up of China's military grouping in the waters of the South China Sea.
Disputes over the Falklands
izvestia.ru
The Falkland Islands have become today another stumbling block in the dispute over oil. Argentina claims that these territories belong to it, while the UK is sure otherwise. In 2010, British industrialists began drilling a well off the coast of one of the islands, and the old conflict, which had already led to military intervention, continued with renewed vigor.
A new bloody conflict is brewing in the Middle East. This news will not be any sensation for you, as this region has long been disfigured by wars and revolutions. The history of the potential conflict is banal to disgrace - it is a struggle for resources. In 2010, an American oil company Noble Energy discovered an oil and gas field on the shelf in the Mediterranean Sea, the resources of which, as the Americans calculated, are equal to 453 billion cubic meters. At first, Lebanon and Israel, due to disputes over borders, were rather reserved about the "sharing of the fallen wealth." But everything changed in January 2017, when the Lebanese government issued a license for exploration of the field (Block 9) to the Franco-Russian company Total. Although representatives of Total said they would work at a distance of at least 25 km from the border with Israel, Defense Minister A. Lieberman called the fact of issuing a license to develop the field provocative, and the agreement of companies such as Total to start gas production on the Lebanese shelf "great mistake," since Block 9 belongs to Israel. And after the government reacted with a "smile" to his words, Lieberman began to threaten a war between Lebanon and Israel. When the intensity of passions reached the limit, the head of American diplomacy, Rex Tillerson, came to Beirut. But instead of softening the heat, he said that he blamed Hezbollah for all of Lebanon's problems. To which the leader of the movement, Hassan Nasrallah, said that if the Lebanese Defense Council decides to destroy Israeli oil installations, then Hezbollah is ready to fulfill the order. The situation is complicated by the fact that Lebanon, by inviting Total, enlisted the support of Russia, France and Iran, and Israel, in turn, turned to its big brother from North America, which is not called Canada. The developing situation could potentially lead to a new big war. In the event of the outbreak of hostilities, control over energy resources will already be the main goal, in this conflict the issue of control over the entire Middle East will be raised. The importance of the Block 9 field for Lebanon and Israel cannot be overestimated. Never before have they had such opportunities. And the government of both countries is ready to "bite" anyone for him. For example, back in September last year, the Israeli military conducted a series of exercises that simulated a clash with Hezbollah, including a simulated takeover of southern Lebanon. And the story of the transfer of the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem only added fuel to the fire. Apparently realizing that Palestine and Hamas simply do not have the ability and resources to resist Israel, so the latter found another opponent. Objectively, there is only one country that can keep the situation from exploding. The country that sent one of its largest energy companies to Lebanon and plans to conclude an interstate agreement on military cooperation with this country is Russia.
The economics of war- an economic branch that deals with issues of the defense industry and military affairs. War economy- one of the academic disciplines that studies patterns in the economic support of the military industry and is the main part of all military science.
Economy during the war- this is the economic activity of the country during the period of hostilities. Features - the transfer of the country's economy to "military rails", the active production of military equipment and the supply of the needs of the army, the direct impact of politics on the economic activity of the country, the maximum use of natural and economic resources for military purposes.
Economy during the war, as a rule, is characterized by an increase in production in the industrial sector, on the one hand, and damage to agriculture, on the other. Against the background of the employment of enterprises and people in the military sector, there is an acute shortage of various goods, including food.
The Essence of the Economy of War
The development of the economic potential is directly related to the strengthening of the military positions of the state, its ability to quickly respond to aggression and rebuild the economy to cover the needs of the armed forces at any time (both peaceful and military).
The essence of the military economy lies in the formation of a powerful defense industry on the territory of the country, the activation of production capacities, the determination of the geographical location of defense enterprises, as well as the establishment of links between them for the full functioning of all "branches". The military economy is working on the development of new technologies in the field of military production, the preparation of energy resources, the development of the main spheres of the country's life (energy, agriculture, public communications, transport, and so on).
In peacetime military economy exists on a par with civil. This means that military enterprises can produce very different products - both military and domestic. For example, in the field of military support, a factory can produce military and civilian clothing and footwear.
The economics of war subject to the market, which makes it dependent on supply and demand. But along with this, military enterprises always have one big customer - the military organization system responsible for the country's defense capability.
The economics of war and its structure
During the war, the economies of the participating countries adapt to the current situation and are directed exclusively to cover the needs of the country's defenders. In particular, the functional structure of the economy of war can be divided into three conditional sectors:
1. Manufacture of military products.
2. Manufacture of special tools necessary for the further production of military products.
3. Making the necessary equipment for people who work in the military production sector.
This structure distinguishes the military economy from other areas of economic activity in ordinary life. During the war, the country produces almost the entire range of military products, which is used by the army, both for military operations and for peaceful purposes.
All military products can be divided into several groups:
1. Weapons for conducting combat operations, equipment for armed confrontation, as well as special military equipment. Such production is the basis for achieving victory in the war.
2. Products that are necessary for the personnel of the army and ensure their livelihoods. This includes uniforms, equipment, medicines, food, and so on. A special place is occupied by means for conducting armed confrontation. Their production requires the involvement of highly qualified people, as well as ensuring maximum production capacity.
Even in peacetime, the trend towards an increase in the range of military goods remains in force. Every strong country must be ready to attack, which stimulates the "behind the scenes" arms race. At the same time, the name of military products, the quantity and quality of manufactured equipment is constantly changing. The worst thing is that there is an active nuclear arms race, which is only gaining momentum today.
In many countries of the world, against the backdrop of life in peaceful conditions, there is a noticeable tendency to reduce the number of armed forces, reduce budgets for military spending, and reduce the volume of military products produced. Particular attention is paid to the development of more technologically advanced weapons capable of more effectively resisting the enemy with minimal use of human resources.
The Laws of the Economy of War
From the very beginning of hostilities, the economic activity of the country has been directed only in a military direction. At the same time, the final result of the war largely depends on compliance with the basic laws:
1. The one who uses more modern types of weapons and military equipment wins the war. The difference in the effectiveness of weapons often plays a decisive role in the question of the winner. History has shown that, in most cases, an army with effective and more modern weapons has defeated its opponents. F. Engels came to this conclusion. He argued that the manufacturer of more effective instruments of violence wins the war. And here the main role is played by the military economy and its coherence.
2. The second law is the law of production in a surplus economy. The point is simple. In the economy of war, a certain part of the budget should be allocated to strengthening the country's defense capability. Here it is important to restructure the economy in such a way that the strengthening of defense is not at the expense of the production of military goods, that is, weapons and combat vehicles.
3. Another law is the qualitative interconnection of various sectors of the economy. Its meaning is the observance of quantitative and qualitative proportions. If the scale of production of any product increases, then similar changes should occur in other sectors. The timing of the implementation of this law may be different, but the faster the economy is rebuilt and the relationship is established, the more effective the hostilities are and the greater the chances of victory.
Economy of the USSR during the Second World War
To achieve victory in the war, the USSR had to make truly titanic efforts, both in the sphere of the economy and in terms of human resources. Engineers, peasants, workers, designers and other specialists - all worked to solve one main problem. Only complete mobilization made it possible to ensure the complete and unconditional defeat of fascist Germany.
Before the start of the war, the economy of the USSR was one of the largest. First place in Europe in the extraction of "black gold", the development of new industries, the first place in the extraction of synthetic rubber, ore and manganese. At that time, the share of the USSR in the world economy (industrial production) was almost 10%.
.jpg)
The decline in economic potential, the transfer of several thousand enterprises in the eastern part of the country, great destruction in the national economy and huge loss of life - all this led to a strong reduction in production in the country. By the end of 1941, the volume of GDP will almost halve. Under such conditions, the leadership of the USSR had to take tough measures to strengthen the rear and massively mobilize people. The civilian population was literally "snatched" from civilian life and sent to the front.
In 1942, mass mobilization began among the villagers. At the same time, absolutely everyone was taken - including teenagers and women. By the end of 1942, more than 60% of women were involved in agriculture. There was an acute problem of qualification of personnel. In those enterprises that were transferred, there were no more than a third of specialists and workers.
In 1941, the implementation of plans for education and training of personnel began. In a short period, almost 4.5 million people were trained. But despite these efforts, the number of people involved in production was still declining. In 1940, the factories employed about 34 million people. While in 1942 this figure dropped to the level of 18.5 million.
The main task was to fully provide the army with military equipment, uniforms, and weapons. The production of combat aircraft, tank vehicles of new types, and new ammunition has intensified. Engineers have united all efforts to provide the army with the highest quality and capable equipment. But it still wasn't enough. At the end of 1941, the needs of the fleet and army were only 70% satisfied. The main problem was an acute shortage of steel, which was needed for the production of aircraft and military equipment.
Due to the transfer of many factories, it was necessary to change the production technology at many enterprises. At the same time, the Urals assumed the leading role, where almost the entire defense sector of the country was concentrated. Due to the loss of Donbass, an acute shortage of coal appeared.
Agriculture also suffered serious damage during the Second World War. The volume of harvesting grain crops by the end of 1941 dropped sharply. The main suppliers of products were the southeastern and eastern regions of the country. In particular, the leading role was taken by Central Asia, Kazakhstan, Siberia, the Volga region and others. Already by 1942, the titanic efforts of the USSR made it possible to establish an effective war economy, where everything worked efficiently and smoothly. Already in 1943, a sharp increase in production began.
The same period can be characterized as a turning point for the state budget of the country, cargo turnover in the transport sector, and food sectors. In 1943, active rearmament of the fleet and army began, new weapons and equipment appeared. The army is provided with new images of artillery, weapons, aircraft, armor.
1944 is the culmination of the country's entire war economy. The level of heavy industry has reached unprecedented heights. At the same time, the increase in capacities was explained by the restoration of old and the construction of new plants in those areas that were liberated from Nazi Germany. Already in 1943, it was possible to significantly increase the volume of agricultural production, trade turnover was established, and capital investments increased.
One of the main roles in production began to play the eastern regions of the USSR. Production of metal was being established in the southern and central parts. In 1945, the results of steel melting almost doubled compared to 1943. The production of non-ferrous metals, steel, and rolled products increased, and coal mining increased.
But, despite some successes in industry, the losses in the war were colossal - more than one and a half thousand cities were destroyed, tens of thousands of villages were destroyed, more than a thousand mines were disabled, more than three thousand plants and factories were blown up, about 65 thousand kilometers of railway tracks were destroyed. . All this not counting the huge loss of human resources
Stay up to date with all important United Traders events - subscribe to our
