The capture of territories is not the main thing. What is the main features of the destruction war conducted by the Russian Federation

There are two types of wars - for territory and for destruction, writes Blogger Roman Komiz. And the war for destruction has no end - more precisely, has no other end than the destruction of one of the parties . . . All types of wars are eventually divided into wars for the territories and war for destruction. The former may be completed by territorial concessions or as a result of significant changes in the strategic position of one or each of the parties.

Others cannot be completed until at least one side is completely destroyed. More precisely, it will not be completely destroyed: the war in the territory may, in certain circumstances, grow into a war for destruction, but the war for the destruction into the war for the territory is never.

The parties to the destruction can imitate another nature of war, which is extremely easy to make, because any war is related to the loss or gaining control of territories, but you should never confuse the task of control with the goals of war.

That is why, when we deal with the war for destruction, any conversations about territorial concessions and diplomatic process as a means of finishing war-a fake that is probably used by each side for their own purposes, knowing, however, that the same thing can do an opponent - using a pause as an intermediate result in the war for destruction. A classic example of destruction war is the war between Rome and Carthage.

If Carthage was not destroyed by the Romans, we would probably not know about the Roman Empire and the further course of world history would go in a completely different way. By the way, neither the first nor the Second World War began as a war for destruction. From the very beginning, they were wars in the territory, but only in the process, by the amount of accumulated contradictions and potentials, did they turn into wars to destruction.