Interregional and international conflicts and ways to resolve them. Local conflicts in the territory of the former USSR and the Russian Federation Officers and warrant officers

On September 30, 2015, Russia launched a military campaign in Syria. After the end of World War II, the USSR and then Russia participated in dozens of military operations in which they suffered losses. From China and Cuba to Angola and Czechoslovakia - where and what the Russian armed forces achieved - in a special project by Kommersant

Nagorno-Karabakh
In the late 1980s, the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict escalated around the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region (NKAO), with a predominantly Armenian population, which was part of the Azerbaijan SSR. On February 20, 1988, the Council of Deputies of the NKAO addressed the leadership of the USSR, the Armenian and Azerbaijani republics with a request to transfer Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia. The Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee refused, which led to mass protests in Yerevan and Stepanakert, an escalation of the conflict, and then pogroms among both the Armenian and Azerbaijani populations. The forces of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs and the troops of the Transcaucasian Military District carried out actions to separate and disarm the participants.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the conflict escalated into large-scale hostilities. Both sides used weapons obtained as a result of the division of Soviet military property remaining on their territories. In May 1994, the parties signed the Bishkek Ceasefire Protocol, which is still in effect. As a result of the conflict, Azerbaijan has effectively lost control over Nagorno-Karabakh and considers the region to be occupied territory.

During the three-year war, the sides lost from 15 thousand to 25 thousand people killed, more than 25 thousand were injured, hundreds of thousands of civilians fled their places of residence. According to data updated as of January 1, 1999, the losses of units of the Soviet army and internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR and Russia, which were involved in separating the conflicting parties, amounted to 51 people.
Territory: Nagorno-Karabakh
Period: 1988–1994
Duration: 6 years
Participants: Armenia / Azerbaijan
USSR/Russian forces involved: units of the SA and internal troops of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs
Losses: 45 people of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, 6 people of the SA
Supreme Commander: Mikhail Gorbachev

North Ossetia and Ingushetia
On June 4, 1992, the Russian Supreme Court adopted a law on the formation of the Ingush Republic without defining borders, which led to an escalation of territorial disputes between Ingushetia and North Ossetia over the Prigorodny region (transferred to North Ossetia after the deportation of Chechens and Ingush in 1944). On the night of October 31, 1992, interethnic clashes began on its territory. Ossetian and Ingush armed formations took part in the battles that lasted until November 5. To separate the warring parties, a combined group of troops of the North Caucasus Military District and internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation was introduced into the conflict zone.

According to the Russian Prosecutor's Office, during the armed conflict, 583 people (including 27 military personnel) were killed on both sides, over 900 people were injured, and 261 people went missing. More than 60 thousand Ingush living in the Prigorodny district were forced to leave their homes.
Territory: North Ossetia and Ingushetia
Period: October 31-November 4, 1992
Duration: 4 days
Participants: North Ossetia / Ingushetia
USSR/Russian forces involved: troops of the North Caucasian Military District and the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation (12.5 thousand)
Losses: 27 people (22 Ministry of Defense, 5 Ministry of Internal Affairs)

Conclusion: Soviet and Russian troops were indispensable participants in local conflicts on the territory of the former USSR

Transnistria
In 1990, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic declared its independence from the Moldavian USSR. In the spring of 1992, the confrontation between Chisinau and Tiraspol escalated into an armed conflict. The fiercest battles between the Moldovan military and Transnistrian armed forces took place in June for control of the city of Bendery, located on the right bank of the Dniester, but included in the PMR.

On June 23, Major General Alexander Lebed arrived in Tiraspol with a special forces battalion of the Airborne Forces, who was tasked with taking control of the situation. He headed the 14th Guards Combined Arms Army, based on the territory of Moldova and Transnistria since Soviet times, and declared that from now on it would maintain armed neutrality: “We are strong enough to repel anyone... For now they will not touch us, and We won’t touch anyone.”
On July 21, 1992, the presidents of Russia and Moldova, Boris Yeltsin and Mircea Snegur, signed the “Agreement on the principles of the peaceful settlement of the armed conflict in the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova.” It provided for the creation of a security zone and the introduction of trilateral peacekeeping forces into the region. In August, a Russian peacekeeping contingent arrived in the region, including six battalions, a helicopter squadron (six Mi-8 and four Mi-24), and a mobile group of the 138th separate communications regiment of the Supreme High Command (3.1 thousand military personnel in total).

During the conflict, according to various estimates, 800–1000 people died on both sides. The losses of Russian military personnel who were in the conflict zone and took part in peacekeeping activities were 21 soldiers and 3 officers. The conflict is virtually frozen to this day.
Territory: Transnistria
Period: March-August 1992
Duration: 5 months
Participants: Moldova / Transnistria
USSR/Russian forces involved: units of the 14th Army, airborne special forces
Losses: 24 people
Supreme Commander-in-Chief: Boris Yeltsin
Conclusion: Soviet and Russian troops were indispensable participants in local conflicts on the territory of the former USSR

Tajikistan
After the collapse of the USSR, political and clan contradictions intensified in Tajikistan. By the summer of 1992, a full-scale civil war began between supporters of the government and the armed opposition. The Russian 201st Motorized Rifle Division stationed in the republic was subject to attacks by rival groups trying to seize its weapons and military equipment. Attacks on border detachments from Afghanistan have become more frequent. On the night of July 13, 1993, one of the Russian outposts was almost completely destroyed by a detachment of the Islamic opposition, and 24 border guards were killed.

After this incident, by decision of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, the 201st MSD was replenished and included the 41st helicopter squadron and the 2nd separate jet division. An aviation group of the Russian Air Force was also created in Tajikistan. In September 1993, an agreement was signed in Moscow on the formation of collective CIS peacekeeping forces in Tajikistan, which included the 201st Motorized Rifle Division and units from the republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.

The war lasted until 1997; simultaneously, since 1994, several rounds of inter-Tajik negotiations took place. On June 27, 1997, in Moscow, President Emomali Rakhmonov and the leader of the United Tajik Opposition Said Abdullo Nuri signed an agreement to establish peace and national harmony.

According to various estimates, during the civil war in Tajikistan, from 60 thousand to 150 thousand people died. During clashes on the border, attacks on military units and peacekeeping activities, Russia lost 302 military personnel killed, dead or missing. In 1999, Russia and Tajikistan agreed to create a Russian military base on the basis of the 201st motorized rifle division (operating since 2004).
Territory: Tajikistan
Period: 1992–1997
Duration: 5 years
Participants: Tajik authorities / opposition groups
USSR/Russian forces involved: 201st motorized rifle division (6 thousand), group of border troops in Tajikistan (20–25 thousand)
Losses: 302 people, of which 104 were border guards
Supreme Commander-in-Chief: Boris Yeltsin
Conclusion: Soviet and Russian troops were indispensable participants in local conflicts on the territory of the former USSR

South Ossetia
In the late 1980s, national movements intensified in Georgia and South Ossetia. In the fall of 1990, after Zviad Gamsakhurdia came to power in Georgia, the leadership of South Ossetia set a course for creating an independent republic. On the night of January 6, 1991, the Georgian leadership sent police and national guard units into the capital of the autonomy, Tskhinvali, and armed clashes and a blockade of the region began. The fighting continued until mid-1992.

On June 24, 1992, Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Chairman of the State Council of Georgia Eduard Shevardnadze signed the Dagomys Agreement on the principles of conflict resolution. On its basis, joint mixed Russian-Georgian-Ossetian peacekeeping forces (one motorized rifle battalion of 500 troops each) were introduced into the republic in July. From Russia, peacekeeping functions were performed by formations and military units of the 58th Army of the North Caucasus Military District.

From November 1990 to July 1992, over 3 thousand civilians died as a result of the conflict. During the implementation of measures to stabilize the situation in the region, Russian military personnel lost 46 people, including the Ministry of Defense - 34, the Ministry of Internal Affairs - 6, the FSB - 6 people.

Since 1992, South Ossetia has remained a virtually independent state entity. The Georgian authorities continued to consider it as an administrative unit of the Tskhinvali region, but did not take active steps to establish control over it. All this time, Russian peacekeepers remained in the region (see chapter “Forcing Georgia to Peace”).
Territory: South Ossetia
Period: January 1991-July 1992
Duration: 1.5 years
Participants: South Ossetia / Georgia
USSR/Russian forces involved: military personnel as part of a mixed peacekeeping force (500 people)
Losses: 46 people
Supreme Commander-in-Chief: Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin
Conclusion: Soviet and Russian troops were indispensable participants in local conflicts on the territory of the former USSR

Abkhazia
In the late 1980s, at gatherings of the Abkhaz population, demands began to be put forward for Abkhazia to secede from Georgia, and the first clashes between Georgians and Abkhazians began. In 1992, after the entry of Georgian troops into the territory of the republic, the confrontation escalated into an armed conflict. Several thousand people were killed on both sides, and hundreds of thousands fled their homes.

In August 1992, the 345th Parachute Regiment was transferred to Gudauta, which was engaged in the evacuation of Russian holidaymakers and military families (4.3 thousand people were evacuated) and the protection of military facilities. On May 14, 1994, the Georgian and Abkhaz sides signed an Agreement on a ceasefire and separation of forces. In June, the Collective Peacekeeping Forces, staffed only by Russian military personnel, were introduced into the conflict zone. Their basis was the 345th Regiment (later transformed into the 10th Separate Parachute Regiment of Peacekeeping Forces). The peacekeeping contingent ceased its activities in Abkhazia on September 1, 2008, and the 7th Russian military base remained in Gudauta.

Territory: Abkhazia
Period: 1992–1994
Duration: 2 years
Participants: Abkhazia / Georgia
USSR/Russian forces involved: Airborne Forces, peacekeeping contingent (1,800 people)
Casualties: 73 people
Supreme Commander-in-Chief: Boris Yeltsin
Conclusion: Soviet and Russian troops were indispensable participants in local conflicts on the territory of the former USSR

The experience of the war in Afghanistan and other local wars deserves the closest attention when solving problems of the development of the Armed Forces, training and education of personnel

It is important for a future officer to know military history, the history of the Armed Forces, because it develops the moral nature of a person by studying the past in order to educate the younger generation, in order to leave an undistorted history for the coming generation.

But military history is considered even more useful from the point of view of understanding the experience of armed struggle contained in it.

The famous military historian, professor at the General Staff Academy, General N.A. Orlov, wrote: “Military history is the richest and inexhaustible treasury of military experience of entire millennia, from which military sciences draw material for their conclusions. It compensates to some extent for the lack of personal experience. Military sciences differ from other sciences in that repetition of experience is not available to them, since the phenomenon of war is too complex and involves the loss of human lives. Peacetime experience can only reproduce the situation of action, the preparation for battle, but not the action itself.”

Thus, the importance of military historical knowledge for future officers is great and multifaceted.

47. USSR - RF: the fight against armed nationalist groups (1920-1956), as well as ethnic and regional conflicts in the territory of the former USSR (1988-1991) and Russia (1991-2000).

Ethnic and interregional armed conflicts:

Armenian-Azerbaijani (Karabakh) armed conflict (1988-1994);

Georgian-Ossetian (South Ossetian) conflict (1991-1992);

Armed conflict in Transnistria (1992);

Georgian-Abkhaz armed conflict (1992-1994);

Civil war in Tajikistan (1992-1996);

Armed conflicts in the North Caucasus (1920-2000);

Ossetian-Ingush conflict (October-November 1992);

Armed conflicts and anti-terrorist operations in Chechnya and Dagestan (1920-2000);

Anti-terrorist operation in the North Caucasus (August 1999-2000);

Operation on the territory of the Republic of Dagestan;

Operation on the territory of the Chechen Republic.

One of the features of the modern world is the constant increase in its aggressiveness. Militant forces wage a continuous struggle in various forms against states and countries that have liberated themselves from colonial oppression; they strive to hinder the economic growth of these states, disarm them ideologically, split them and isolate them politically. The most reactionary circles of terrorism are trying to rely on contradictions between developed and developing countries, between countries professing Islam and Christianity, on the constant aggravation of the international situation, on acts of direct aggression. All this forces the people of peace-loving countries to increase vigilance and intensify actions in defense of peace, democracy and social progress.

Increased aggressiveness and the creation of a tense international situation require the Armed Forces to be constantly ready to repel any aggression.

The use of new means and methods of armed struggle has raised the issue of training and education of personnel in a different way. Along with military training and the ability of the troops to skillfully use weapons and military equipment, they were required to have high moral and psychological preparation.

The experience of local wars has shown that the offensive is still the main type of combat operations. Such principles of its conduct as decisive massing of forces and means in the direction of the main attack, surprise of actions, reliable fire defeat of the defending enemy, conducting an offensive on a wide front and at a high pace, reliable command and control of troops and constant interaction of all forces and means remain important.

In offensive combat, tank tactical groups, reinforced by motorized infantry and helicopters, were widely used. They were used for independent actions deep behind enemy lines in order to capture important areas, facilities, and launch sites for anti-aircraft missiles and missile launchers. What is new in the combat use of tank units reinforced with ATGMs is their use as anti-tank barriers.

In local wars, helicopters were widely used, which successfully carried out combat missions in close cooperation with troops directly on the battlefield.

The experience of defensive operations testifies to the increased capabilities of defense, especially in the fight against tanks and aircraft of the attacking side. At the same time, the most important requirement for defense remains its activity, the highest form of manifestation of which was counterattacks and counterattacks. Local wars have shown increased confrontation between tanks and anti-tank weapons. ATGMs and fire support helicopters turned out to be the most effective means of combating tanks.

Aviation had a significant influence on the course and outcome of hostilities. The increased capabilities of aviation allow it to solve tasks much more successfully than before in gaining and maintaining air superiority, in directly supporting the combat operations of units and formations, in isolating the combat area from the influx of reserves, and in disrupting the supply of various material and technical means.

In local wars, there was a tendency towards closer interaction between ships and units and formations of ground forces. At the same time, the actions of the naval forces were often subordinated to the interests of the ground forces deploying battles in coastal areas. Amphibious assault vehicles, as well as the marine infantry, have received great development.

The experience of local wars testifies to the significantly increased role of logistical support for military operations of troops. For this purpose, in addition to motor transport, aviation was widely used, especially helicopters, as well as naval transport ships. The practice of local wars has confirmed the decisive role of man in war and the constant increase in his role, despite the presence of highly effective equipment, weapons and various automated means of controlling weapons and troops. In this regard, the requirements for individual training of military personnel of all specialties have increased, since the presence of group weapons requires high training of each crew member and crew.

Brief conclusions

In the post-war construction of the Armed Forces, significant changes occurred in the development of states. The decisive factor in these changes was the emergence and continuous improvement of nuclear missile weapons and their transformation into the main means of armed struggle.

Nuclear missile weapons increased the combat capabilities of troops and placed new demands on them. The ground forces have become fully motorized, and their basis today is made up of armored forces.

The development of the Air Force followed the line of equipping them with supersonic jet aircraft with an increased range, armed with NURS and URS with conventional and nuclear warheads.

In the development of the Navy, the main direction was the transformation of the nuclear missile-carrying submarine fleet into the main striking force. As nuclear missile weapons developed, views on methods of combat and operations changed. Their development proceeded in the direction of increasing the scope of offensive actions, abandoning an offensive on a continuous front and moving to actions in individual directions, using armored units and formations in the first echelons, and turning the offensive on the move into the main method of action of troops. The development of methods of conducting defense was expressed in increasing the width of the bands and depth of defense, increasing its stability, abandoning the template positional formation and turning mobile defense into the main method of defensive operations of troops.

The experience of local wars shows that the main burden in solving combat missions and achieving the goals of wars fell on the ground forces. In the overwhelming majority, the successful completion of combat missions was achieved through the joint efforts of all branches of the ground forces. The main weapon of fire in attack and defense was artillery. The experience of wars, especially the Arab-Israeli war of 1973, confirmed the high combat effectiveness of self-propelled artillery. Combat practice has shown that ATGMs are very effective anti-tank weapons.

Despite the fact that in many local wars the fighting took place in difficult terrain, tank troops were widely used and played an important role. The range of their combat missions has expanded significantly. During the offensive, tanks gave troop groups high survivability and facilitated the conduct of highly maneuverable combat operations at great depths. In defense, tank units and units were used to increase its activity and stability.

Aviation, especially tactical and army aviation, played a large role in local wars. At the same time, strategic aviation was also widely used in Vietnam. Air Force units provided support and cover for ground forces, gained and maintained air superiority, and were also used to transport material and technical assets. Helicopters have received great development.

The use of the Navy was characterized by both independent combat operations of naval forces and actions to support ground forces. The fleet played a large role in the successful achievement of the goals of joint operations, striking important military and industrial facilities and ground forces, carrying out landings, blockading the coast from the sea, defending its sea coast, as well as providing sea transportation, regrouping and evacuation of troops.

August 1991 coup. The threat of signing a new union treaty, according to which the republics of the USSR received almost complete autonomy, forced the most reactionary part of the country's leadership to take extreme measures. On August 19, 1991, a state of emergency was declared in the country, and troops were sent to major cities. The activities of all parties except the CPSU were banned, democratically minded media were closed, and a curfew was introduced throughout the country.
Taking advantage of the absence of M.S. Gorbachev in Moscow, acting. O. President of the USSR G. I. Yanaev, First Deputy Chairman of the Defense Council O. D. Baklanov, Chairman of the KGB of the USSR V. A. Kryuchkov, Prime Minister of the USSR V. S. Pavlov, Minister of Internal Affairs of the USSR B. K. Pugo, Chairman of the Krestyansky Union of the USSR V. A. Starodubtsev, Minister of Defense of the USSR D. T. Yazov and President of the Association of State-Owned Enterprises A. I. Tizyakov announced that all power belonged to the “State Committee for a State of Emergency” (GKChP) formed by them. The State Emergency Committee declared the main objective of its actions to be the preservation of the USSR and the socialist order.
The main political opponent of the State Emergency Committee was the newly elected President of the RSFSR B.N. Yeltsin, so the main blow was directed against him. To arrest B. N. Yeltsin and his supporters, special forces were sent to the building of the Supreme Council where he was located. But the coup failed. The people did not support the State Emergency Committee program, and the heads of the security forces refused to use weapons against their citizens. In addition, among the members of the State Emergency Committee themselves there was no unity and determination to follow through to the end. The initiative completely passed to the democratic camp, and on August 22 the “putschists” were arrested.
The main consequences of the “August putsch” were the deprivation of power by the CPSU and the acceleration of the process of collapse of the USSR.
Collapse of the USSR. By September 1991, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia became completely independent, and Russia was forced to officially recognize this. But this was not the end of the USSR; the agony of the once great state continued for several more months until December 1991, when one of the founding republics, Ukraine, left it.
The collapse of the USSR was completed by the Belovezhskaya Accords. The leaders of Russia (B.N. Yeltsin), Ukraine (L.M. Kravchuk) and Belarus (S.S. Shushkevich) on December 8, 1991 signed a document on the liquidation of the USSR and the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States. A little later, other former USSR republics became part of the CIS, except for the three Baltic republics and Moldova. Russia became the legal successor of the USSR, thus practically returning to its borders of the 17th century.
The collapse of the USSR almost entailed the collapse of the Russian Federation, since many autonomous republics expressed a desire to become independent. Only big concessions and a firm position by the president prevented this process.
As a result of lengthy negotiations, on March 31, 1992, the majority of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation signed the Federative Treaty, according to which the republics within the Russian Federation, territories, regions, autonomous entities and the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg were classified as subjects of the Federation.
Confrontation between the president and parliament. The first President of Russia, still part of the USSR, June 12, 1991. B. N. Yeltsin was elected. In the first round of elections, his candidacy received the support of more than 60% of citizens who took part in the vote. The second person in the state was Vice President A.V. Rutskoy. At the 5th Congress of the Supreme Soviet of Russia, R.I. Khasbulatov was elected chairman of this government body, thus representing the highest legislative power in the Russian Federation.
Already in 1993, disagreements began between the president and parliament over the form of reforms. By the fall, these disagreements reached their highest point and on September 21, 1993, Yeltsin announced the abolition of the Supreme Council and the Congress of People's Deputies, as well as the formation of a bicameral Federal Assembly based on holding elections to the State Duma and vesting the functions of the upper house of parliament with the Federation Council.
In response to this, at the urgently convened 10th Congress of People's Deputies on September 23, a resolution was adopted to terminate Yeltsin's presidential powers and to assign his duties to A.V. Rutsky. The deputies gathered in the White House decided not to leave the building and organize its defense.
The “White House” was, as in 1991, blocked by troops, barricades appeared on the streets again, but the people, tired of political upheavals, this time did not express their support for either side. On October 3, parliament supporters went on the offensive; they tried to seize the television center building, but this attack was repulsed, and on October 4 it was all over.
On this day, by order of the president, heavy tanks, brought to direct fire, without encountering any response resistance, shot at the parliament building. The shelling lasted several hours and was broadcast live on television. The fire that started and the large number of dead and wounded forced the parliamentarians to surrender. With the bloody war a new era began in Russia - the era of presidential rule.
Elections to the State Duma 1993. In December 1993, elections to the Federal Assembly and a referendum on the draft new Constitution took place simultaneously. According to the new constitution, approved by the majority of voters, Russia became a presidential republic. The Duma, according to the constitution, continues to play an important role in the political life of the country, but its powers are limited.
Based on the election results, the composition of the State Duma was as follows: out of 450 seats, the largest number of deputy mandates was received by representatives of the pro-presidential bloc “Choice of Russia” (E. T. Gaidar) - 96 seats. Second place went to the Liberal Democratic Party of V.V. Zhirinovsky - 70 mandates. The Communist Party of Russia (CPRF) (G.A. Zyuganov) received 65 mandates, the Agrarian Party of Russia, which is close in views to the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, received 47 mandates. The remaining parties (Yabloko, the Party of Russian Unity and Accord (PRES), DPR and Women of Russia) received from 14 to 21 mandates.
Thus, the composition of the State Duma accurately reflected the deepest divergence in the political preferences of the people. Neither the president's supporters nor his opponents had a solid majority necessary for uncompromising legislative activity.
Elections to the State Duma of 1995. Elections to the State Duma, according to the Election Law, now provided for a 5% barrier for electoral blocs to hold their deputies on the federal list. That is, the voter noted on the ballot not only the name of the candidate, but also the bloc to which he gives preference.
At the end of 1995, the data on the most popular blocs were as follows: Communist Party of the Russian Federation - 22.3% of the vote, LDPR - 11.8%, Our Home Russia - 10%, Yabloko - 6.89%. In single-mandate constituencies, voters' preferences and sympathies were distributed approximately the same: the Communist Party of the Russian Federation received 58 mandates, the NDR - 10, and Yabloko - 14. Thus, the State Duma in 1995-1999. was pro-communist in composition. However, since Russia was already a presidential republic, this was not decisive in determining its political and economic course. The upcoming presidential elections were much more significant.
1996 presidential elections The winter and spring of 1996 in the political life of Russia were marked by an unprecedented campaign in support of B. N. Yeltsin and his course of radical reforms.
Voters were faced with a choice: either building a new Russia on democratic principles, or returning to the dark totalitarian past, which was firmly linked to “Soviet reality” and the power of the Communist Party. In the first round of elections, the majority of votes were cast for Yeltsin, Zyuganov and Lebed. In the second round of elections held on July 3, B.N. Yeltsin won, for whom 53.8% of voters voted, or about 37% of the total list of eligible Russians to vote.
Elections to the State Duma in 1999. Elections to the State Duma on December 19, 1999 brought the following results: the Communist Party of the Russian Federation again took first place, receiving 111 mandates, the Unity bloc (Bear) was in second place with 76 mandates, and OVR was in third ("Fatherland - All Russia") - 62 mandates, in the fourth SPS ("Union of Right Forces"), in the fifth "Yabloko" - 22 mandates and in the sixth Zhirinovsky bloc - 17 mandates.
Presidential elections in 2000 On March 26, 2000, elections for the President of the Russian Federation were held; as expected, the acting leader won a convincing victory already in the first round. President V.V. Putin, gaining 52.64% of the votes; second place again, like 4 years ago, was taken by the leader of the Communists G. A. Zyuganov, receiving 29.34%. Third place went to Yabloko leader G. A. Yavlinsky - 5.84%. Fourth to A. M. Tuleyev - 3.02%. And only fifth to V.V. Zhirinovsky - 2.72%. Thus, V.V. Putin became the new president of Russia.
Economic development. Deficit. At the end of 1991, the economic situation in the country was very tense. Inflation (depreciation of money) reached 25-30% per month, which actually made production unprofitable and led to its curtailment. Shops and warehouses lacked essential goods, and in some areas food shortages were so great that the threat of famine became real.
In this regard, the Russian government has developed the concept of a rapid transition to a market economy, or shock therapy.” The “father” of the reform was Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers E. T. Gaidar (the acting chairman at that time was B. N. Yeltsin). Gaidar's first step in economic policy was the liberalization of prices (refusal from administrative control of prices), which led to a rapid rise in prices and a fairly rapid filling of the domestic market with food and industrial goods. However, such a sharp transition from a socialist economy to a capitalist one gave rise to a number of negative aspects. Over six months, prices increased more than 10 times, and over the following years - thousands of times, the population's deposits in savings banks "burned out", the overwhelming majority of Russian residents found themselves below the poverty line. The people's dissatisfaction with the reform was so great that Gaidar was deprived of his post, and further reforms were frozen.
Trying to smooth out the consequences of the reforms, the government was forced to resort to a policy of large loans from foreign states and international funds. By providing loans to the Russian Federation, foreign powers dictated their terms, dooming the country to obediently carry out their will. One of the conditions for the loan was privatization.
Privatization is the transfer of state or municipal property for a fee or free of charge into the ownership of individuals or groups. In the Russian Federation, privatization was carried out in the summer of 1992. Every citizen of the Russian Federation received a privatization check, i.e., his part of the national property and theoretically equal starting opportunities. But this reform did not lead to a revival of the economy, since production required not only a change in the form of ownership, but also capital investment. Therefore, in the summer of 1994, the government decided to move to the second stage of privatization - monetary. The sale of state property allowed the government to temporarily reduce the severity of social problems by transferring the funds received to social funds.
The money received through privatization and loans was not invested in the real sector of the economy and ran out very quickly, resulting in a budget deficit. To obtain funds, the state was forced to transfer the most profitable enterprises to the management of private companies - this completely destroyed the importance and profitability of the public sector. However, the political situation (approaching elections) required immediate replenishment of the social sphere, and therefore GKO shares were released onto the financial market; in fact, a financial pyramid was built, doomed to collapse.
Default. On August 17, 1998, the government, being unable to ensure the payment of interest on GKOs (state short-term obligations), allowed banks not to make payments on their financial obligations to non-residents for 90 days, i.e. declared an actual default (in economics - refusal to pay according to their obligations).

The dollar exchange rate instantly quadrupled, shares of Russian companies fell. After the devaluation of the ruble, the government of S.V. Kiriyenko was dismissed. The financial crisis turned into a political one after the State Duma twice refused to approve V. S. Chernomyrdin as Prime Minister. E.M. Primakov turned out to be a compromise figure for the deputies, whose government included candidates from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. The fall of the ruble continued throughout the year, the crisis affected all social spheres: unemployment rose sharply, and the already low standard of living fell.
In 1999-2000 The economic situation began to stabilize. The growth of the dollar exchange rate was stopped, and an agreement was reached on the restructuring of Russia's external debts. True, the level of wages in the public sector and in most private enterprises has not risen to the previous pre-crisis level. The struggle between economic groups for the most profitable sectors of production has intensified.
Chechen wars. Even before the official demise of the USSR, in the fall of 1991, a coup was carried out in Chechnya. The republic was headed by D. Dudayev, a former general of the Soviet Army. Neither the leadership of the USSR nor subsequently the Russian Federation recognized the independence of the rebellious republic, considering it a subject of the Russian Federation. This meant the continuation of funding for the Chechen Republic in all areas of production and social security. The Chechen leadership used the funds received to organize and arm illegal military formations. This process was also facilitated by the presence in Chechnya of huge reserves of weapons left there by SA units. Not subordinate to the federal center, Chechnya has become a constant threat to the security of the Russian Federation.
Wanting to eliminate this source of tension in the North Caucasus and take control of the republic, the Russian government secretly supported the forces opposing Dudayev in Chechnya. However, during the civil war between the Dudayevites and their opponents, the latter were defeated, which forced the Russian leadership to resort to a forceful solution to the problem. The reason for sending troops into Chechnya was Dudayev’s refusal to hand over captured Russian officers who fought on the side of his opponents.
On December 10, 1994, a group of federal troops was introduced into Chechnya. As it was announced, the purpose of the military operation was to blockade Grozny, disarm the militants and restore the constitutional order and law and order on the territory of the republic.
The outbreak of hostilities in Chechnya clearly demonstrated the weakness of the military leadership of the Russian Federation. Nes-3, despite the massive heroism and high professional level of soldiers and officers, due to poor training and tactical miscalculations, federal troops were able to take the capital of Chechnya, Grozny, only at the end of February 1995, at the cost of huge losses.
After the loss of Grozny and other large cities of Chechnya, the Chechen militants opposing the federal troops switched to guerrilla warfare, led by D. Dudayev, who was declared a criminal.
During full-scale hostilities, the cities and villages of Chechnya were severely destroyed, almost the entire infrastructure was destroyed, the majority of the population had no means of subsistence or work. These circumstances forced the Russian government to allocate a special item of expenditure for the restoration of Chechnya.
In June 1995, a detachment of militants under the command of UJ. Basayev raided the city of Budenovsk (Stavropol Territory) and took hostage all those in the city hospital and other residents of the city. In order to save the lives of the hostages, the Russian government complied with all the militants’ demands and agreed to begin peace negotiations with Dudayev’s representatives. But the complex negotiation process was disrupted in October 1995 as a result of an assassination attempt on the commander of the Russian troops, General A. S. Romanov. Military operations continued. The war revealed the insufficient combat capability of the Russian army and required increasingly large budget investments. In the eyes of the world community, Russia's authority was falling. After the failure of the operation of federal troops in January 1996 to neutralize the militants of S. Raduev in Kizlyar and the village. On May Day in Russia, demands to stop hostilities intensified. The pro-Moscow authorities in Chechnya failed to win the trust of the population and were forced to seek help from the federal authorities.
Dudayev's death in April 1996 did not change the situation. On August 13, Chechen formations actually captured Grozny. Under these conditions, Yeltsin decided to introduce peace negotiations, which he instructed Secretary of the Security Council A.I. Lebed to conduct. In 1996, peace agreements were signed in Khasavyurt (Dagestan), which provided for the complete withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of Chechnya, the holding of general democratic elections, and the decision on the status of Chechnya was postponed for five years. According to unofficial data, the number of deaths during the war was 80 thousand people (mostly civilians), the wounded were 240 thousand. The Russian army lost almost 25 thousand people.
As a result of the elections held in Chechnya at the end of January 1997, the former colonel of the Soviet Army A. Maskhadov became the president of the republic, who formed a new composition of the Chechen leadership, mainly from field commanders. However, A. Maskhadov did not have real full power, which entailed the transformation of Chechnya into a bandit state, where it was not the law that ruled, but the force of arms.
At the beginning of August 1999, a military conflict began in Dagestan, provoked by Chechen militants under the command of Basayev and Khattab. Detachments numbering about 2 thousand people captured several villages in the Botlikh region (in the southwest of Dagestan) under the pretext of establishing an Islamic republic in this region of the North Caucasus. At the end of August, the militants were driven out of the area by federal troops. But the conflict began to grow, covering almost all the regions of Dagestan bordering Chechnya.
Not relying on military force, the militants resorted to terrorism: they planted explosive devices and blew up residential buildings in Buinaksk, Volgodonsk and Moscow, killing hundreds of innocent people. This led to the resumption of hostilities in Chechnya.
In the fall of 1999, federal troops were again introduced into Chechnya. After lengthy bloody battles, Russian troops managed to storm Grozny and a number of other settlements in Chechnya. By the beginning of May 2000, almost the entire territory of Chechnya came under the control of the federal center. In the territory liberated from militants, normal life began to revive.
Foreign policy. The collapse of the USSR led to the emergence of two lines in the foreign policy of the Russian Federation: relations with neighboring countries (former republics of the USSR) and far abroad (the rest of the world).
Russia and neighboring countries. The foreign policy of the Russian Federation towards neighboring countries was built on the principles of forming a new type of cooperation based on mutual respect and trust. The most important task at the initial stage was to determine the range of common tasks and interests.
The CIS turned out to be a rather loose organization, where each member of the union “pulled the blanket upon themselves.” By 1993, the single ruble zone had finally collapsed, and each state acquired its own currency. The division of the once common property of the Soviet Army became a big problem; the unsuccessful attempt to create united armed forces of the CIS had especially negative consequences.
In connection with the problem of the division of the Black Sea Fleet and the question of the status of Crimea and Sevastopol, relations between Russia and Ukraine have worsened. Only in 1997, after major concessions from the Russian Federation, were agreements reached on this issue.
Certain tensions also arose on the issue of reducing nuclear weapons. At the time of the collapse of the USSR, nuclear weapons were based not only on the territory of the Russian Federation, but also in Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Three former Soviet republics declared their nuclear-free status and pledged to transfer nuclear weapons located on their territory to Russia. However, due to complications in Russian-Ukrainian relations, Kyiv has long delayed the practical implementation of the transfer of its nuclear arsenal. Only in 1994 was a joint American-Russian-Ukrainian statement signed on the elimination of nuclear potential in Ukraine and its accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
The closest and most good-neighbourly relations have been established between the Russian Federation and Belarus, a common economic space has been created, and an agreement on the creation of a union state has been concluded. I would like to believe that the process of integration of these two independent states will continue.
Russia and far abroad. The help of Western countries to Russia, which found itself in a difficult economic situation, forced our country to follow their policies for some time. This process had both positive and negative sides.
Thus, in 1992, the Russian-American Declaration on the End of the Cold War was signed and it was stated that both powers no longer “consider each other as potential adversaries.” Russia was admitted to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The Treaty on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-2) was signed, according to which both sides agreed to significant reductions in their nuclear capabilities (by 2/3) by 2003. In 1996, Russia joined the Council of Europe. Russian troops were completely withdrawn from European countries.
However, very soon a whole block of contradictions emerged in relations between Russia and the West, in particular on the issue of the accession of former socialist countries (Poland, the Czech Republic, etc.) to NATO, on the bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO troops, on the Chechen problem. The attempt to unite Russia and European countries to create a counterweight to the United States caused a great negative resonance in the world.
These contradictions caused some cooling in relations. The IMF refused to continue the policy of providing loans to the Russian Federation. The Council of Europe suspended the Russian Federation's membership in this organization, citing human rights violations in Chechnya as the reason, etc.
Yugoslav crisis. One of the most serious contradictions between Russia and NATO was the position towards Serbia. After the collapse of the USSR in Yugoslavia in 1990-1991. Similar trends have emerged. Only Serbia and Montenegro supported the preservation of the federation; the other republics were inclined towards confederation and complete independence. Slovenia was the first to proclaim its independence, but the Serbs took Croatia’s announcement of secession from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia especially hard, since Serbs lived on a significant part of its territory. Military operations began, initially successful for the Serbs, but due to foreign intervention, the Serbian Krajina was practically cleared of Serbs.
The conflict continued in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where, after heavy fighting, ethnic cleansing and mutual accusations of genocide, peace agreements were signed under pressure from NATO and the UN in 1995. Monitoring compliance with these agreements was entrusted to UN forces.
The next point in the NATO program was the separation of the autonomous region of Kosovo from Serbia under the pretext of protecting the interests of the Albanians living there.
On the night of March 23-24, 1999, NATO aircraft began bombing Serbia, as a result of which colossal damage was caused to the country's economy and its inhabitants. The Kosovo crisis sparked the largest conflict between NATO and Russia since the end of the Cold War.

The history of mankind and the history of military confrontations are inseparable. Unfortunately. Having rejected philosophical questions, many researchers have been trying for centuries to understand the root causes of why some people kill others. However, over the millennia, nothing new has appeared in this regard: greed and envy, the precarious position of one’s own economy and the desire to harm a neighbor, religious and social intolerance. As you can see, the list is not that long.

But there are also nuances. After the First and Second World Wars, humanity is no longer too keen on such solutions. If a state needs to resolve a conflict with another power, the military tries not to start a serious confrontation, limiting itself to targeted strikes. In some cases, ethnic and religious contradictions lead to the same results.

If you haven’t guessed it yet, let us explain: today the topic of our discussion will be regional conflicts. What are they and why do they occur? Is it possible to resolve them and how to prevent their manifestation in the future? People have not yet found answers to all these questions, but some patterns have still been identified. Let's talk about this.

What it is?

In Latin there is a word regionalis, which means “regional”. Accordingly, regional conflicts are a type of international disagreement or military actions due to religious tensions that arise in some local area and do not directly affect the interests of other countries. In some cases, it happens that two small nations living in different states fight in border areas, but both powers remain in normal relations and together try to resolve the conflict.

Simply put, these disagreements result in local armed confrontations. For the past ten years, the hottest regions have remained Southeast Asia and Africa, and the rest of the world often does not even know about military operations on the “Dark Continent”. Or he will find out, but after more than a dozen years have passed. However, this does not mean at all that modern regional conflicts in Africa are small in scale: they are extremely bloody and cruel, and there are even cases of captives being sold for meat (in the literal sense of the word).

Global at the regional level

One of the results of World War II was the creation of two independent states. The arena of confrontation between them served as one of the stumbling blocks in the politics of the USSR and the West. Almost all regional political conflicts that are shaking the world today, to one degree or another, affect the interests of Russia and NATO.

It all started with the fact that in 1945, united Soviet-American troops entered the territory of the mentioned country with the aim of liberating it from the Japanese army. However, the already traditional disagreements between the USSR and the USA, although they made it possible to expel the Japanese, were unable to unite the Koreans themselves. Their paths finally diverged in 1948, when the DPRK and the ROK were formed. More than half a century has passed since then, but the situation in the region remains extremely tense to this day.

Not long ago, the leader of the DPRK even announced the possibility of a nuclear confrontation. Fortunately, both sides did not further aggravate relations. And this is good news, because all regional conflicts of the 20-21st centuries may well develop into something much more terrible than both World Wars.

Not everything is calm in the Sahara...

In the mid-1970s, Spain finally abandoned its encroachments on Western Sahara, after which this area was transferred to the administration of Morocco and Mauritania. Now it is under complete control of the Moroccans. But this did not save the latter from problems. Even during the era of Spanish supremacy, they encountered rebels who proclaimed the creation of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) as their final goal. Oddly enough, more than 70 countries have already recognized “fighters for a brighter future.” From time to time at UN meetings the question of the final “legalization” of this state is raised.

Are there more famous regional conflicts? Not everyone knows the examples we gave. Yes, as much as you like!

This confrontation is probably known to most, if not everyone. In 1947, the same UN decided that two new states would be created on the territory of the former British fiefdom, Palestine: Israeli and Arab. In 1948 (yes, the year was eventful) the creation of the country of Israel was proclaimed. As one would expect, the Arabs did not pay the slightest attention to the UN decision, and therefore immediately began a war against the “infidels.” They overestimated their strength: Israel captured most of the territories that were originally intended for the Palestinians.

Since then, not a single year has passed without provocations and constant clashes on the borders of both states. Particularly interesting is France’s attitude towards regional conflicts in that region: on the one hand, the Hollande government supports the Israelis. But on the other hand, no one will forget about the supply of French weapons to “moderate” ISIS militants who are not against wiping Israel off the face of the earth.

War in Yugoslavia

The most serious regional conflict on European territory is the events of 1980 that occurred in the then unified Yugoslavia. In general, starting from the First World War, the fate of this country was extremely difficult. Despite the fact that many peoples in this territory had the same origin, there were differences between them on religious and ethnic grounds. In addition, the situation was aggravated by the fact that different parts of the state were at completely different stages of socio-economic development (which always stimulates local and regional conflicts).

It is not surprising that all these contradictions eventually resulted in a fierce intrastate confrontation. The bloodiest war was in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Just imagine this explosive mixture: half of the Serbs and Croats professed Christianity, and the other half professed Islam. There is nothing more terrible than a civil war caused by religious differences and the emergence of “preachers of jihad”... The path to peace turned out to be long, but already in the mid-90s, fueled by NATO bombing, the war broke out with renewed vigor.

However, all the regional conflicts, examples of which we have given and will give, have never been characterized by a small number of victims. The worst thing is that mostly civilians die, while military losses in these wars are not so great.

General explanations

There can be many root causes. But with all their diversity, it should be remembered that, unlike full-scale wars of the past, regional conflicts have never arisen for some trivial reasons. If such a confrontation has unfolded on the territory of a certain state (or states), even if outwardly prosperous, this fact testifies to the most difficult social problems that have remained unresolved for decades. So what are the main causes of regional conflicts?

The conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh (1989) clearly showed that the formerly mighty Soviet Empire was in a very deplorable state. Local authorities, which, according to many domestic researchers, had by that time already completely merged with ethnic criminal groups, were not only not interested in resolving the conflict, but also directly opposed the purely “decorative” Soviet government in attempts at a peaceful settlement. “Decorative” is an excellent description of Moscow’s power in that region at that time.

The USSR no longer had any real levers of influence (with the exception of the army), and there was no political will for the correct and large-scale use of troops for a long time. As a result, he not only actually moved away from the metropolis, but also largely contributed to the collapse of the country. These are the reasons for regional conflicts.

Features of regional conflicts in the territory of the former USSR

No matter how fresh the words of the anthem “Union of fraternal peoples...” may sound, they have never been particularly relevant. The party leadership did not advertise this too much, but there were enough disagreements on the territory of the USSR that would inevitably lead to a war in the end. An ideal example is the Fergana Valley. A terrible mixture of Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kazakhs and Russians, seasoned with underground preachers. The authorities preferred to bury their heads in the sand, and the problems grew, spreading and increasing, like a snowball.

The first pogroms took place already in 1989 (remember Karabakh). When the USSR collapsed, the massacre began. We started with the Russians, and therefore the Uzbeks and Tajiks fought among themselves. Many experts agree that the main instigator was Uzbekistan, whose representatives still prefer to talk about “external enemies” who “caused” the Uzbeks with other nations. The claims of local “rulers” do not meet with much understanding either in Astana or Bishkek, not to mention Moscow.

About the reasons on the territory of the former Union

Why are we all saying this? The thing is that almost all (!) regional conflicts on the territory of the USSR did not arise “suddenly”. All the prerequisites for their occurrence were well known to the central authorities, who, meanwhile, tried to hush everything up and transfer it into the plane of “domestic conflicts.”

The main feature of local wars on the territory of both our country and the entire CIS was precisely ethnic and religious intolerance, the development of which was allowed by the highest party elite (and then point blank not noticing its manifestations), which actually abdicated itself from all responsibility and left it at the mercy of local criminals. groups in almost all Central Asian republics. As we already know, all this cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who were carried away by these international and regional conflicts.

From this follows another feature of local clashes throughout the territory of the former Union - their exceptional bloodiness. No matter how terrible the military actions in Yugoslavia were, they cannot be compared with the Fergana massacre. Not to mention the events in the Chechen and Ingush republics. How many people of all nationalities and religions died there is still unknown. Now let’s remember the regional conflicts in Russia.

Conflicts of regional significance in modern Russia

From 1991 to the present, our country continues to reap the fruits of the USSR’s suicidal policy in the Central Asian region. The First Chechen War is considered the most terrible result, and its continuation was little better. These local-regional conflicts in our country will be remembered for a long time.

Background to the Chechen conflict

As in all previous cases, the prerequisites for those events were laid long before their implementation. In 1957, all representatives of the indigenous population deported in 1947 were returned to the Chechen Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. The results were not long in coming: if in 1948 it was one of the calmest republics in those parts, then already in 1958 there was a riot. Its initiators, however, were not Chechens. On the contrary, people protested against the atrocities committed by the Vainakhs and Ingush.

Few people know about this, but the state of emergency was only lifted in 1976. However, this was just the beginning. Already in 1986, it was dangerous for Russians to appear on the streets of Grozny alone. There were cases when people were killed right in the middle of the street. Happy! By the beginning of 1991, the situation had become so tense that the most far-sighted had to almost fight their way towards the Ingush border. At that time, local police showed their best side, helping robbed people get out of territory that suddenly became hostile.

In September 1991, the republic declared its independence. Already in October, the well-known Dzhokhar Dudayev was elected president. By 1992, thousands of “fighters for the faith” were concentrated on the territory of “Independent Ichkeria”. There were no problems with weapons, since by that time all the military units of the SA located in the Chechen Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic were plundered. Of course, the leadership of the “young and independent” state conveniently forgot about such trifles as the payment of pensions, salaries and benefits. Tensions were rising...

Consequences

The Grozny airport became a world center of smuggling, the slave trade flourished in the republic, and Russian trains passing through the territory of Chechnya were constantly robbed. Between 1992 and 1994 alone, 20 railway workers died, and the slave trade flourished. As for civilian Russian-speaking residents, according to OSCE data alone, the number of missing people totaled more than 60 thousand (!) people. From 1991 to 1995, more than 160 thousand people died or went missing on the territory of the ill-fated Chechnya. Of these, only 30 thousand were Chechens.

The surrealism of the situation was that all this time money was regularly flowing from the federal budget to Chechnya for “payment of salaries, pensions and social benefits.” Dudayev and his associates regularly spent all this money on weapons, drugs and slaves.

Finally, in December 1994, troops were sent into the rebellious republic. And then there was the infamous New Year’s assault on Grozny, which resulted in huge losses and shame for our army. Only by February 22 did the troops take the city, of which by that time there was very little left.

It all ended with the signing of the shameful Khasavyurt Peace Treaty in 1996. If someone studies the resolution of regional conflicts, then the signing of this agreement should be considered solely in the light of how it is not necessary (!) to reconcile the parties.

As you might guess, nothing good came out of this “world”: a Wahhabi state was formed on the territory of Chechnya. Drugs flowed from the republic like a river, slaves of Slavic nationalities were imported into it. The militants took over almost all trade in the region. But in 1999, the actions of the Chechens finally exceeded all acceptable limits. The government was surprisingly indifferent to the deaths of its citizens, but did not allow militant attacks on Dagestan. The Second Chechen Campaign began.

Second war

However, this time things did not go so smoothly for the militants. Firstly, the population of the republic was far from delighted with the “freedom” for which they fought. Mercenaries from Arab countries, Africa, the Baltic states and Ukraine who arrived in Chechnya soon clearly proved that there would be no “Sharia”. The one who had weapons and money was right. Of course, the Dagestanis - for the same reasons - greeted the militants who invaded their territory not with open arms (which the latter really counted on), but with bullets.

This war was distinguished by the fact that the Kadyrov clan openly went over to the side of the federal forces. Other Chechens followed them, and the militants no longer met with the full support of the local population (theoretically). The second Chechen campaign turned out to be much more successful, but still dragged on for 10 years. The counter-terrorist operation regime was only lifted in 2009. However, many military experts were skeptical about this, noting that the militants’ sluggish guerrilla activity would continue for a long time.

As you can see, local-regional conflicts bring no less grief than a full-scale war. The tragedy of the situation is also that the war in this case does not help in any way to resolve the contradictions that served as its cause. We will remember the regional conflicts in Russia for a long time, as they brought an enormous amount of trouble and suffering to all the peoples who participated in them.

Armed conflict in 1994-1996 (first Chechen war)

The Chechen armed conflict of 1994-1996 - military actions between Russian federal troops (forces) and armed formations of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, created in violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation.

In the fall of 1991, in the context of the beginning of the collapse of the USSR, the leadership of the Chechen Republic declared the state sovereignty of the republic and its secession from the USSR and the RSFSR. The bodies of Soviet power on the territory of the Chechen Republic were dissolved, the laws of the Russian Federation were repealed. The formation of the armed forces of Chechnya began, led by Supreme Commander-in-Chief President of the Chechen Republic Dzhokhar Dudayev. Defense lines were built in Grozny, as well as bases for waging sabotage warfare in mountainous areas.

The Dudayev regime had, according to the calculations of the Ministry of Defense, 11-12 thousand people (according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, up to 15 thousand) of regular troops and 30-40 thousand people of armed militia, of which 5 thousand were mercenaries from Afghanistan, Iran, Jordan, and the North Caucasus republics and etc.

On December 9, 1994, President of the Russian Federation Boris Yeltsin signed Decree No. 2166 “On measures to suppress the activities of illegal armed groups on the territory of the Chechen Republic and in the zone of the Ossetian-Ingush conflict.” On the same day, the Government of the Russian Federation adopted Resolution No. 1360, which provided for the disarmament of these formations by force.

On December 11, 1994, the movement of troops began in the direction of the Chechen capital - the city of Grozny. On December 31, 1994, troops, by order of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, began the assault on Grozny. Russian armored columns were stopped and blocked by Chechens in different areas of the city, and the combat units of the federal forces that entered Grozny suffered heavy losses.

(Military encyclopedia. Moscow. In 8 volumes, 2004)

The further course of events was extremely negatively affected by the failure of the eastern and western groupings of troops; the internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs also failed to complete the assigned task.

Fighting stubbornly, federal troops took Grozny on February 6, 1995. After the capture of Grozny, the troops began to destroy illegal armed groups in other settlements and in the mountainous regions of Chechnya.

From April 28 to May 12, 1995, according to the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation, a moratorium on the use of armed force in Chechnya was implemented.

Illegal armed groups (IAF), using the negotiation process that had begun, redeployed part of their forces from mountainous regions to the locations of Russian troops, formed new groups of militants, fired at checkpoints and positions of federal forces, and organized terrorist attacks of unprecedented scale in Budennovsk (June 1995), Kizlyar and Pervomaisky (January 1996).

On August 6, 1996, federal troops, after heavy defensive battles, having suffered heavy losses, left Grozny. INVFs also entered Argun, Gudermes and Shali.

On August 31, 1996, cessation of hostilities agreements were signed in Khasavyurt, ending the first Chechen war. After the conclusion of the agreement, the troops were withdrawn from the territory of Chechnya in an extremely short period of time from September 21 to December 31, 1996.

On May 12, 1997, a Treaty on Peace and Principles of Relations between the Russian Federation and the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria was concluded.

The Chechen side, not observing the terms of the agreement, took the line towards the immediate secession of the Chechen Republic from Russia. Terror against employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and representatives of local authorities intensified, and attempts to rally the population of other North Caucasian republics around Chechnya on an anti-Russian basis intensified.

Counter-terrorism operation in Chechnya in 1999-2009 (second Chechen war)

In September 1999, a new phase of the Chechen military campaign began, which was called the counter-terrorist operation in the North Caucasus (CTO). The reason for the start of the operation was the massive invasion of Dagestan on August 7, 1999 from the territory of Chechnya by militants under the overall command of Shamil Basayev and the Arab mercenary Khattab. The group included foreign mercenaries and Basayev’s militants.

Fighting between federal forces and invading militants continued for more than a month, ending with the militants being forced to retreat from the territory of Dagestan back to Chechnya.

On these same days - September 4-16 - a series of terrorist attacks were carried out in several cities of Russia (Moscow, Volgodonsk and Buinaksk) - explosions of residential buildings.

Considering Maskhadov’s inability to control the situation in Chechnya, the Russian leadership decided to conduct a military operation to destroy the militants on the territory of Chechnya. On September 18, the borders of Chechnya were blocked by Russian troops. On September 23, the President of the Russian Federation issued a Decree “On measures to increase the effectiveness of counter-terrorism operations in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation,” providing for the creation of a Joint Group of Troops (Forces) in the North Caucasus to conduct counter-terrorism operations.

On September 23, Russian aircraft began bombing the capital of Chechnya and its environs. On September 30, a ground operation began - armored units of the Russian army from the Stavropol Territory and Dagestan entered the territory of the Naur and Shelkovsky regions of the republic.

In December 1999, the entire flat part of the territory of the Chechen Republic was liberated. The militants concentrated in the mountains (about 3,000 people) and settled in Grozny. On February 6, 2000, Grozny was taken under the control of federal forces. To fight in the mountainous regions of Chechnya, in addition to the eastern and western groups operating in the mountains, a new group “Center” was created.

On February 25-27, 2000, units of the “West” blocked Kharsenoy, and the group “East” closed the militants in the area of ​​Ulus-Kert, Dachu-Borzoi, and Yaryshmardy. On March 2, Ulus-Kert was liberated.

The last large-scale operation was the liquidation of Ruslan Gelayev’s group in the area of ​​the village. Komsomolskoye, which ended on March 14, 2000. After this, the militants switched to sabotage and terrorist methods of warfare, and federal forces countered the terrorists with the actions of special forces and operations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

During the CTO in Chechnya in 2002, hostages were taken in Moscow at the Theater Center on Dubrovka. In 2004, hostages were taken at school number 1 in the city of Beslan in North Ossetia.

By the beginning of 2005, after the destruction of Maskhadov, Khattab, Barayev, Abu al-Walid and many other field commanders, the intensity of sabotage and terrorist activities of the militants decreased significantly. The only large-scale operation of the militants (the raid on Kabardino-Balkaria on October 13, 2005) ended in failure.

From midnight on April 16, 2009, the National Anti-Terrorism Committee (NAC) of Russia, on behalf of President Dmitry Medvedev, abolished the CTO regime on the territory of the Chechen Republic.

The material was prepared based on information from open sources