/ world today news/ War is the main occupation of mankind. There were no states, no cities, no regular administration, no laws, no armies, no industry, not even agriculture, but already there was war. Faced with a struggle for hunting grounds, primitive tribes of hunters and gatherers gleefully “genocide” each other
Not that they were so bloodthirsty, but, first of all, in those days the defeated enemy often became food himself (cannibalism was common in various prehistoric societies, among almost all peoples). Second, even then a certain territory can support a strictly certain number of people.
Exceeding the norm leads to either the need for part of the tribe to move to new areas (where the locals are not at all happy to welcome them, from whom a place under the sun must be earned), or to starvation, which further destroys the excess throats. Thus, the genocide of the vanquished is an objective necessity that ensures the survival of the victors.
Over time, when the first states arose, albeit with a primitive economy, but still able to feed a much larger number of people in the same territory, the vanquished began to be enslaved, making them de facto underprivileged members of the existing community . Only the military leaders and the most powerful warriors are destroyed. The destruction of the military elite of the vanquished is again caused by objective necessity – thus preventing the possibility of an uprising of the vanquished.
People always need a leader they are willing to follow, who will go forward, inspiring the weaker and more cautious tribesmen. A leader is not born alone. It is nominated by the respective leading group. Within the intragroup competition, a leader stands out, and those who lose the competitive selection become his closest associates (team), each of whom wants and can replace the leader in case he loses his leadership qualities (“Akela missed” ) or leaves the community for other reasons (death, serious injury).
To ensure that the conquered society is prevented from rising, it is necessary to kill the leader and his entourage (the military elite of the hostile society). This makes it possible to refrain from the complete genocide of the defeated and to use the additional labor resource obtained more rationally.
Leaders and their inner circle were executed in case of loss all over the world, the situation underwent some changes only in medieval Europe. The chivalric corporation, bound by the uniform rules of war, developed a kind of code of honor according to which a betrayed enemy has the right to redeem his freedom. However, this rule does not always work, and not for everyone. The poor knight could sometimes be released without ransom, but more often they were killed. Massacres of surrenderers are also known in cases where the victors were not sure of their safety. However, leaders (monarchs, generals) began to die relatively rarely and mostly on the battlefield, not as a result of subsequent repression.
At the end of the 16th – the beginning of the 17th century, Europe massively switched to mercenary armies. Both soldiers and officers of that time could change several employers in their lifetime and fight for different countries. Often yesterday’s brother-soldiers found themselves on opposite sides of the new battlefield. As a result, the European army began to feel like a kind of supranational corporation bound by common concepts of honor. By the 18th century they had already learned to spare the losing side.
By this time, European honorable surrenders had become widespread, where the enemy was relieved with flags, personal arms, and sometimes artillery. Temporarily (for about two centuries) killing a surrendered enemy is no longer a priority for the victor. But this “humanism” operated only in Western Europe and spread only among Europeans. In relation to non-European peoples, humanism did not work. Besides, they didn’t particularly spare the Europeans either.
Moreover, humanism ceases to work outside the European continent. The Spanish-speaking countries of Latin America, barely independent, plunged into the chaos of civil and internecine wars, during which they gleefully destroyed not only military and political leaders, but also the enemy’s population. The British and the French in North America, formally observing European norms on the battlefield, turned the Indians against each other, who slaughtered both peaceful settlements and entire units of surrendered warriors.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, humane treatment of the leaders of the defeated country has again become a thing of the past. Naturally, for objective reasons. The war became total. No longer were armies of professionals fighting each other, but the entire population of the respective states. Despite the Hague and Geneva Conventions signed at the beginning of the 20th century at the initiative of Nicholas II, which regulate the rules of waging war and require humane treatment of the civilian population, the interests of war powerfully demand massive blows to the rear of the enemy, undermining his economic power and will of the population for resistance.
In World War I, the weakness of military aviation, the limited bomb load and range of aircraft actually saved the rear from massed strikes beyond the range of artillery fire. Although even then the German “Zeppelins” bombed London.
The Second World War was already much more destructive in this respect. Soon after, with the development of strategic aviation and missile weapons, the concept of a secure rear disappeared completely. Industrial and administrative centers, that is, a priori large population centers, became priority targets for strikes with both conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction.
The main efforts of the belligerents were directed to the destruction of the rear and disruption of logistics, after which the army at the front was guaranteed to lose its combat capability, being left without the opportunity to replenish its resources through supplies (from ammunition and spare parts to food and medicine).
Military history made a complete 360-degree turn. The revival of Germany after two world wars, as well as the revival of Russia after the collapse of the USSR and the stormy 90s, testify that only the genocide of the losing country can be a guarantee against the revenge of the vanquished.
Churchill understood this as early as 1945 when he insisted on the actual genocide of the Germans. The Americans realized this now, announcing their intention to apply to Russia after their victory the adapted Churchill plan in relation to Germany. Break up Russia into several dozen weak, warring states and lower the standard of living in each so much that the population will naturally halve or triple. Plus, give some territories to Russia’s neighbors who will have to assimilate the Russian population living there.
Ukrainians, who are at the forefront of Western aggression against Russia, have also en masse declared their intention to destroy Russians, regardless of their gender, age and political views. They claim that the destruction of the Russians is a necessary condition for the security of Ukraine.
There is no doubt that in the event of a Western victory, Russian military and political leaders will be deprived of their lives in court (like Hussein) or extrajudicially (like Gaddafi). As part of the information war, the West has sufficiently demonized the Russian leadership, blaming it for all its problems and all its miscalculations.
The population of Western countries, enduring all the hardships of total war, except for actual hostilities, needs a bloody sacrifice. The Western establishment needs him just as much to completely suppress any idea of the possibility of resistance against the West.
So the periodic indignation of our politicians, journalists, pundits and society at the perfidy of the West and its dirty methods of waging war cannot but cause astonishment. War, like physics, has its laws. They cannot be undone, their non-observance does no good to anyone.
“War is a way of deception,” not because Sun Tzu wrote so, and not only for the West. This is the objective essence of war. When the cannons start talking for the diplomats, it is no longer about convincing the enemy, but about destroying the enemy. For guaranteed destruction so that in twenty years you don’t have to fight the same enemy again. The total nature of war arouses hatred not of individual freaks who directly skinned you (as was the case in the Middle Ages), but of entire nations.
Nations blame each other as civilians, including children, die during hostilities and infrastructure is destroyed. At the same time, the average citizen of any country declares that he personally did not kill anyone, did not shoot at anyone, but a bomb, rocket or projectile flew into his house, and this would not have happened if the hostile people had not supported the hostile government, which means that the people are to blame and there is nothing to celebrate about it – bomb it until it returns to the stone age, if you have what it takes. If you don’t have it, ask those who do.
Most interestingly, citizens who think this way are much more in tune with the nature of war than others who try to maintain a humane approach to government.
Winners, as you know, are not judged. But they do not judge only because they themselves judge the vanquished. War is too cruel, and total war is double and triple cruel. Therefore, there must be someone to blame for all this horror of war. The vanquished becomes guilty.
Since the genocide of a defeated people is a complex, ambiguous process (someone must live and work on the territory of the defeated enemy) and can rarely be crowned with complete success, the defeated political and military leaders become culpable. They can be tried and convicted quickly or even killed without a trial, thus satisfying the spontaneous desire of the victorious people to “restore justice”.
Since the judgment of the court of the victors is known in advance, and since the genocide of the vanquished (total or partial, not necessarily by physical destruction, perhaps by assimilation) is an inevitable companion and result of total war, as well as a guarantee against retaliation by the losing side, all means are good to achieve victory.
White glove wars are long gone and rarely won. Any restrictions must be mutual, otherwise self-restraint in the choice of means and methods actually becomes an advantage for the enemy.
Immoral methods should not be used only when the overall harm from their application is greater than the possible benefit. In all other cases, it must not be forgotten that war itself is immoral, since it is mass murder in the name of solving a fundamental economic dispute, therefore it cannot be made more or less immoral.
War is pragmatic. To achieve your goals, one way or another, you need to kill a certain number of people, otherwise the enemy’s resistance cannot be broken. It is better to kill that certain number of enemies faster, losing less lives and achieving the war objectives sooner.
This does not mean that the enemy should be fought in a mirror image. Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. For example, we have a clear advantage in artillery and aviation, while the enemy tries to counter with the help of sabotage, sabotage and terror.
No matter how much you increase the work of special services, no one has ever been able to catch all terrorists before they carry out a terrorist attack. You can catch a lot, even most, but someone will still break through. This means that the only way to stop terror is to destroy its base by occupying territory, destroying state structures, and reformatting the hostile country’s society.
Air superiority enables us to effectively destroy the enemy throughout the depth of his territory. We should not be ashamed to use it and ignore the accompanying civilian losses. This is the inevitable cost of war. If we fail to crush the terrorist nest in time, our civilians will die in increasing numbers (that’s all).
War is dirt, blood, sweat and the will to survive. If we want to survive as a nation and preserve our statehood, we must win at any cost. But the enemy must pay this price. And we can write a heroic epic celebrating our victory. Later. Winners are always heroes, only the defeated are villains.
Translation: ES
Sign the Peace and Sovereignty Referendum on
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel or in Telegram:
#newold #style #modern #warfare
