



































International Journal of Biological Engineering and Agriculture


American Journal of Science and  

Learning for Development 
 

Volume 1 | No 2 | Dec-2022 

 

 

 
Published by inter-publishing.com  |  All rights reserved. © 2022 
Journal Homepage: https://inter-publishing.com/index.php/IJISE    

Page 237 

 

 

 
Prospects for the Development of Local Wars in the International 

Arena 

 
 

Sapaev Jasurbek Kamilovich 
1
, Uralov Xusan Boboqulovich 

2 

 

 
1 

National University of Uzbekistan named after Mirzo Ulugbek, Head of the scientific department of 

the military training center, major in the reserve 

2 
National University of Uzbekistan named after Mirzo Ulugbek, Senior teacher of the cycle of 

chemical protection and topogeodetic supply of the Military Training Center of the Engineer-Sapyar 

troops, associate professor, lieutenant colonel in the reserve 
 
  
 

Abstract: This article examines the trends and prospects for the development of local wars in the 

international arena. Modern local wars are characterized by the tendency of their 

internationalization, which is due to the fact that the goals of the belligerents somehow affect the 

interests of third countries that are involved in the conflict in one form or another. 
 
Keywords: local wars, armed conflicts, USA, Russia, NATO, Nagorno-Karabakh, Ukraine. 

 
  
How quickly the situation on the world scale is changing today, the situation in some regions of the 

world is becoming more and more acute, various contradictions, conflicts and bloodshed are 

intensifying, the danger of international terrorism, extremism and cross-border crimes is increasing, 

and the ongoing military conflicts in our immediate vicinity are deeply felt by us. does not fail to 

arouse a feeling of concern and anxiety". 

The Armed Forces are the basis of the state military organization and the country's defense system, 

designed to contain and prevent military conflicts, as well as to ensure the military security of the 

state [1]. 

The 21st century has dramatically changed world politics on a global scale, and this has been 

reflected in the activation of geopolitical, geoeconomic, military-strategic activities of major actors 

and entities. 

Due to the growing role of China, India, and Russia, the sole hegemony of the United States in the 

world political order has ended. 

The rapid development of the economy of China, Japan, India, South Korea, and Taiwan caused the 

center of power to shift to the Asia-Pacific region. 

The negative aspect of the transformation is evident in the growing confrontation between the United 

States and Russia [2]. 

Wars have always accompanied human progress. Only "in the last 5.5 thousand years, more than 

14.5 thousand big and small wars took place in the world, in which more than 3.6 billion people died 

from hunger and epidemics "[8; p. 69 pages]. 

Whether local or international in nature, wars have always had devastating consequences for cities, 

countries, and local populations. 



 

American Journal of Science and  Learning for Development Volume 1, No 2|    
Dec - 2022 

 

 
Published by inter-publishing.com  |  All rights reserved. © 2022 
Journal Homepage: http://inter-publishing.com/index.php/AJSLD    

Page 238 

 

The goals of war in different eras were different: "if in ancient times wars were fought primarily for 

the benefit of the ruling classes and had the goal of capturing slaves, in the Middle Ages wars were 

aimed at seizing land and people. Increasing the income of the top of society. Industrial capitalism 

During the period, major countries rapidly expanded their possessions and markets through military 

intervention and changed the political and economic map of the world in their own way" [8; page 

70]. 

Already in the twentieth century, wars were fought to divide the world. Thus, the First World War 

was aimed at redistributing the world and spheres of influence. After the First World War, the world 

began to be drawn into new military conflicts, the scope and consequences of which were much 

greater than the previous ones. In this case, we are talking about the Second World War and the 

Great Patriotic War. 

The initiator of the Second World War was the Nazi leadership of Germany, which was later joined 

by the fascist regimes of Italy, Japan and other countries. These regimes sought to forcibly subjugate 

other countries and all of humanity and thereby establish world domination. 

Thus, the Nazis waged an aggressive war, whose goals were "anti-democratic, inhuman in design 

and content, barbaric in their achievement" [8; page 70]. 

Since the end of the Second World War, there have been no such major wars on earth. However, 

local wars or regional military conflicts occasionally break out in one or another part of the planet, 

involving many participating countries. 

Due to the frequent occurrence of local wars in the scientific community, interest in issues related to 

local wars has increased. Therefore, it is necessary to dwell on this issue in more detail. 

K. Clausewitz understood local war as "a form of conflict limited in time, space, and scale, aimed at 

exhausting the enemy and aiming at victory." [6; p.177 page ]. 

According to Clausewitz, "small wars, for example, are fought on the borders of states. The 

disruptive actions characteristic of small wars serve to demonstrate power and force the enemy to 

accept the terms of the winning side without a general battle. Clausewitz also refers to the concept of 

small wars to various popular partisan spectacles also included wars based on "[11; p. 134 pages]. 

The military encyclopedia defines a local war as "in contrast to a world war, the spatial scale of 

military operations, the number of participants, and the forces and means used are limited" [4; p. 378 

pages]. 

Local wars aggravate the international situation, intensify military and political conflicts and increase 

the possibility of a new world war. The local wars started by the developed countries of the West in 

recent years not only reflect the confrontation of individual countries, but also aim to end 

globalization by military means and establish a unipolar world. 

Modern local wars are distinguished by their interstate character, which means that in addition to two 

combatants, other states with their own interests also participate in them. The existing system of 

international treaties and agreements allows the parties to the conflict to receive various types of 

assistance from allied countries. As a result, a local war takes on the characteristics of a coalition 

war, which in turn can lead to an expansion of its scope. 

Modern domestic wars are "large-scale forces participating in armed struggle, up to operational and 

strategic groups of both sides; the use of various methods and forms of warfare on a tactical and 

strategic scale; the use of all available arsenal of means of armed struggle - from the most modern 

weapons and military equipment, in particular , light weapons to precision weapons. Some countries 

violate international legal norms during local wars, use means and methods of war prohibited by 

international law against civilians and prisoners of war. Thus, the UN considers the actions of the 

United States of America in Vietnam as genocide, Israel in the occupied Arab territories, South 

Africa in Namibia" [5; p. 55 pages]. 



 

American Journal of Science and  Learning for Development Volume 1, No 2|    
Dec - 2022 

 

 
Published by inter-publishing.com  |  All rights reserved. © 2022 
Journal Homepage: http://inter-publishing.com/index.php/AJSLD    

Page 239 

 

Modern local wars, as a rule, begin with a sudden attack on important infrastructure and economic 

facilities. It is enough to remember how local wars started in Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, Syria and 

other countries. Nevertheless, in recent decades, the initiators of such local wars have not been able 

to win any of these wars. The exception here is probably the war in Yugoslavia. "The struggle 

against foreign invaders, along with other means of resistance, was provided by moral and political 

forces based on the just nature of the war with the aggressors, including the awareness of the 

defensive nature of the struggle of the nations under attack. This stopped the "civilizers" in Vietnam 

and North Korea Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria" slowed down the aggression [5; p. 56 pages]. 

There have been many local wars in the past decade. It is enough to recall the wars in Iraq, Libya, the 

ongoing war in Syria, military conflicts in Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh, etc. 

The crisis in Ukraine had a significant impact on the state of the entire international system. This 

conflict also affected the relationship between Russia and NATO. This relationship has never been 

easy. However, in 2011-2013, that is, before the start of the "color revolution" in Ukraine, relations 

between Russia and NATO were more or less stable. In turn, the Ukraine crisis had a negative 

impact on the relationship between Russia and NATO. As a result, NATO declared Russia the main 

threat to international stability and accused it of seeking to "redraw" Europe's borders. Russia does 

not like NATO's expansion to the East, as well as attempts to destabilize the situation in Russia's 

neighboring countries. 

The most objective evidence of the current state of relations between Russia and NATO is concrete 

actions and decisions taken by both sides. Thus, in 2016, a new concept of Russian foreign policy 

was adopted, according to which "Russia is very worried about the eastward expansion of NATO 

and the strengthening of the alliance's activities near the borders of Russia, which leads to the 

emergence of danger. " [5]. 

The concept also states that "NATO, together with the European Union, is carrying out geopolitical 

expansion, putting pressure on Russia in all directions, which is extremely harmful to regional and 

global security. NATO and the European Union demonstrate their unwillingness to take real 

measures to create an effective and fair security system in Europe" [3 ]. 

It can be seen that ―the concept clearly implies the destructive role of NATO and the EU in recent 

years. It is noted that the policy of the West to contain the Russian Federation has a negative impact 

on regional and global security, which has a particularly negative meaning in the era of cross-border 

challenges and threats, which, by definition, must be solved jointly need., and not to form new 

dividing lines, but, like NATO" [12; p. 44 pages]. 

Now let's see how NATO's attitude towards Russia has changed due to the situation in Ukraine. 

Thus, according to the results of the Newport summit, three main decisions of NATO were made: 

1) To recognize Russia's aggression against Ukraine. To suspend practical cooperation with Russia, 

to "freeze" relations with it. At the same time, to maintain political channels of interaction with 

Russia regarding the situation in Ukraine; 

2) End the reduction of defense budgets of NATO member countries, raising them to the level of 

2% of GDP. In addition, at least 20 percent of the countries' military expenditures must be spent 

on the purchase of new weapons; 

3) An increase in the number of rapid reaction forces (RDF) of NATO. 

Creating a joint high readiness force of 20,000 people in Siberia" [13]. At the Polish NATO summit 

held in Warsaw in 2016, the following decisions of NATO were noted: 

1) deployment of four NATO battalions in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to protect these 

countries from potential Russian aggression; 

2) the simultaneous strategy of "restraint and dialogue" with Moscow; 

3) strengthening the presence of NATO in the Black Sea region" [13]. 



 

American Journal of Science and  Learning for Development Volume 1, No 2|    
Dec - 2022 

 

 
Published by inter-publishing.com  |  All rights reserved. © 2022 
Journal Homepage: http://inter-publishing.com/index.php/AJSLD    

Page 240 

 

The 2017 NATO Summit in Brussels summarized the following outcomes: 

1) NATO's entry into the international coalition to fight ISIS; 

2) increasing the defense costs of NATO member countries" [13]. 

The NATO summit held in Brussels in 2018 was marked by the following results: 

1) Approval of the obligation of NATO members to raise military expenditures to the level of 2% of 

GDP. It is planned to achieve this indicator by the end of 2024.; 

2) creating additional battalions, forming new squadrons and increasing the NATO fleet; 

3) establishment of new command centers: Atlantic Command (Norfolk, USA) and Logistics 

Command (Ulm, Germany); 

4) NATO members again condemned Russia's policy and stated that its "aggressive actions" pose a 

serious threat to the security of the alliance members [13]. 

It is also necessary to note the main events directly related to the USA as the head of NATO. The 

launch of the European Confidence Building Initiative in 2014 and the adoption of the new US 

National Security Strategy in 2017 should be given the greatest attention. 

The European Confidence Building Initiative is an American project for additional NATO funding 

aimed at modernizing and strengthening the Alliance's infrastructure and increasing the number of 

NATO forces in Europe. As a result, the project was aimed at strengthening Europe, and "the United 

States will be responsible for their territorial integrity and sovereignty. In fact, this meant a US 

operation involving Russia " [13]. 

Thus, the United States attaches great importance to this initiative, which is evidenced by the 

significant increase in project funding over the past two years. At the same time, the main focus is on 

the creation of reserves of military equipment, which indicates the desire of NATO to prepare the 

rear in case of a possible war with Russia. 

In addition, NATO annually conducts up to 40 large-scale operational training events "in Europe 

with a clear focus against Russia. For example, in the spring of 2021, NATO began the large-scale 

exercise "Defender of Europe 2021". Now American troops are being transferred from the 

continental part of North America to Europe across the Atlantic Ocean. . In Europe, there is a 

movement of troops to the borders of Russia. The main forces are concentrated in the Black Sea 

region and the Baltic region" [13]. 

Coordination centers were established in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria to 

ensure the assembly of NATO troops and supplies. Weapons, military and special equipment reach 

Greek ports. 

Another important document is the National Security Strategy of the United States 2017. In the 

strategy, "Russia and China threaten the interests of the United States and seek to undermine 

America's influence in the world. Thus, the United States actually recognizes the desire for global 

domination, a unipolar world. Americans want to dominate the world with no one do not want to 

share, and therefore the growing influence of Russia and China worries them very much" [12; p. 46]. 

In addition, the strategy states that Russia is actively moving in the direction of Europe in order to 

distance Europe from the United States and to split into NATO. At the same time, Russia is accused 

of directly invading Georgia and Ukraine. In addition, Russia has been shown to violate the 

sovereignty of many countries around the world by interfering in their internal politics. 

This shows that relations between Russia and NATO are at a very low level, in fact they have 

returned to the Cold War era. Both sides see each other as their main rivals on the international stage. 

In the United States and NATO countries in Europe, the myth of the threat from Russia is 

deliberately created and developed, and in the Baltic countries and Poland, the military forces of the 

alliance are being built. 



 

American Journal of Science and  Learning for Development Volume 1, No 2|    
Dec - 2022 

 

 
Published by inter-publishing.com  |  All rights reserved. © 2022 
Journal Homepage: http://inter-publishing.com/index.php/AJSLD    

Page 241 

 

On the issue of relations between Russia and NATO, the positions of Western and Russian 

researchers are completely opposite. A large number of Western experts consider Russia to be the 

main threat to international stability and security and consider it to be guilty of violating international 

law. In turn, most Russian researchers believe that Russia is simply protecting its national interests 

and is not ready to be ruled by the United States, which is trying with all its might to undermine 

Russia's position in Europe and the world, to deprive it of its traditional sphere. 

The recent instigation of the war in Nagorno-Karabakh is another attempt to draw Russia into the 

field of international military action, so NATO will try to destroy the population of the Russian 

Federation under the pretext of a retaliatory strike. The main trends of military operations in 

Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020 can be identified: 

preparations for war were carried out openly. Joint Azerbaijan-Turkey military exercises were held 

one after the other in the territory of Azerbaijan with the scenario of "liberation of the territories 

occupied by Armenians." It seems that such activities were not appropriate in the context of the 

escalation of the situation on the borders of Russia in different directions (Belarus crisis, coup in 

Kyrgyzstan)" [9 ]; 

"Pashinyan apparently maintained relations with the Azerbaijani President Ilhom Aliyev and 

mediation efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group at the expense of the foreign ministers, yet he made 

provocative statements about Karabakh, openly pushing Azerbaijan, towards Baku, and at the same 

time, Yerevan, if Baku starts fighting, "Moscow is behind all this." There were other anti-Russian 

demarches. Thus, a difficult situation arose: Yerevan provoked the Turkish tendency in Azerbaijan 

and Russia in different ways, which was well used by Aliev in political support for military actions 

during the war" [ 9]; 

These factors mainly determined the tactics of Moscow's actions in the Karabakh war, when it first 

took a pause (although there were telephone communications with Yerevan), then the OSCE Minsk 

Group took an active part in the preparation of the so-called humanitarian ceasefire. The US and 

France, as co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, did not go ahead, while Russia engaged in dialogue 

with Ankara, Baku and Yerevan to end the war in the form of other negotiations" [9]; 

If Armenia had recognized the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh during the war, Stepanakert 

would have entered Russia's zone of responsibility, regardless of how Azerbaijan, the Minsk Group 

and the world community reacted to it. As a result, Moscow is faced with the need to ensure the 

security of Karabakh and is forced to participate in a military conflict. Under certain circumstances, 

this could lead to a full-scale war involving other parties, particularly Turkey; 

Resulting in a critical situation. Active intervention of Russia was necessary to solve the problem. 

Armenia was faced with a choice: either lose the entire territory of Nagorno-Karabakh or sign an 

agreement to end the war. 

Thus, the results of the military conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh are as follows:  

1) the war has stopped, Russian peacekeeping forces are located on the line of communication. So 

far, neither side has decided to continue hostilities. Like any other country, Azerbaijan has the 

right to invite foreign armed forces to its territory have, but these forces will not have the status 

and rights of peacekeeping forces; 

2) Russia controls the Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhichevan corridors; 

3) Russia has now established itself as the only force that can bring peace in the Caucasus; 

4) Russia will permanently have armed forces both in Armenia and Azerbaijan; 

5) Russia did not allow itself to be drawn into the conflict, which means a sharp deterioration of 

partnership relations with Azerbaijan and another complication of relations with Turkey. Since 

its establishment, the CSTO has demonstrated the first major real successes, it exists not on 

paper, but as an influential regional power. This, of course, is a big plus for Russia's geopolitical 

ranking" [9]. 



 

American Journal of Science and  Learning for Development Volume 1, No 2|    
Dec - 2022 

 

 
Published by inter-publishing.com  |  All rights reserved. © 2022 
Journal Homepage: http://inter-publishing.com/index.php/AJSLD    

Page 242 

 

Next, we will deal with the question of who benefits from local wars in the world. 

If you look at what unites all local wars, then, first of all, it can be noted that such a war "not only 

destroys competitors, but also brings great benefits, and those who receive these benefits do not have 

to participate, these massacres themselves" [7]. 

The mechanism for waging a domestic war is well-designed - however, one does not necessarily win 

this war, only destroy the economy of competitors. 

If you look closely at the national economy of developed countries, you can see that the economy of 

a number of countries is mainly focused on the military industry. For example, at the moment " US 

industry accounts for about 65% of military orders, if you reduce these orders, then the entire US 

economy will be attacked, and the US military-industrial complex is the engine of its economy. To 

get orders for weapons, you need a constant demand for weapons, otherwise the state the budget will 

collapse. World War III, with the use of modern missiles of all kinds, including nuclear missiles, 

does not need weapons manufacturers, in this case, weapons such as tanks, guns, manpower and 

airplanes will turn out to be easy only up to 44. researches of young scientists for the enemy and lasts 

only a few minutes in a modern war, this is well understood by everyone" [7]. 

If we recall history, we can see that the main country that enriched itself during the Second World 

War was the USA. The US economy boomed during these wars because: first, the war was not 

fought on US soil, unlike the economies of Europe and Japan, respectively, whose economies were 

not destroyed; secondly, the US was the main producer of military equipment for the Entente 

countries in the First World War and for the anti-Hitler coalition in the Second. The arms trade, the 

mass supply of weapons led to the accumulation of gold reserves of the time in the United States. 

Thus, local military conflicts reflect the interests of transnational capital and the political circles of 

advanced capitalist countries, primarily the United States. But, of course, military corporations are 

interested in local wars and those who make huge profits from the supply of weapons to military 

zones. 

At the same time, although a country is enriching itself, it is clear that thousands and millions of 

refugees appear in countries where wars are being waged and people are dying, where production 

and economy are being destroyed. For example, "Since 1955, the civil war in the south of Sudan has 

not stopped. Weapons are supplied to Sudan from all over the world. The warring parties can find 

weapons from China, Iran, Russia and others. At the same time, the decree of Russian President 

Vladimir Putin in 2004 prohibited the supply of weapons to Sudan, but trade continues. According to 

recent reports, Sudan has started supplying weapons to Syria, and Sudan itself has an embargo on 

arms exports. It is a market economy that has become a war economy, where everyone tries to profit 

from selling weapons to hot spots" [10]. 

At the same time, the excuses for supplying weapons may be different. Thus, China explains the 

need to provide Sudan with military equipment by the fact that most of the oil fields are located in 

the war-torn Northern regions of the country. On the other hand, China is investing heavily in these 

areas, which means they should help Sudan protect its oil infrastructure. At the same time, it should 

not be forgotten who contributed to the development of inter-ethnic and territorial conflicts in this 

country, the former colony of Sudan since the declaration of independence in 1956 — Britain and the 

United States of America. 

In 2011, South Sudan declared its independence. Since then, the United States has been on the 

territory of South Sudan, presumably to preserve the country's sovereignty. Although, of course, the 

real reasons are to protect US geopolitical interests in South Sudan. 

Of course, Sudan is one of the many countries that has fallen victim to its advantageous geographical 

location. Similar scenarios can be seen in the recent history of many countries. 

Therefore, local wars are needed that do not have the objective of destroying or occupying the 

territories of the presumed enemy. Civil wars, wars against terrorism are the best you can think of for 

profit. 



 

American Journal of Science and  Learning for Development Volume 1, No 2|    
Dec - 2022 

 

 
Published by inter-publishing.com  |  All rights reserved. © 2022 
Journal Homepage: http://inter-publishing.com/index.php/AJSLD    

Page 243 

 

Thus, it can be concluded that modern local wars are distinguished by their interstate character, that 

is, in addition to the two combatants, other states with their own interests also participate in them. 

The existing system of international treaties and agreements allows the parties to the conflict to 

receive various types of assistance from allied countries. As a result, a local war takes on the 

characteristics of a coalition war, which in turn can lead to an expansion of its scope. 

Domestic military conflicts reflect the interests of transnational capital and the political circles of 

developed capitalist countries, primarily the United States. But, of course, both military corporations 

and those who make huge profits from the supply of weapons to military regions are interested in 

local wars. 

At the same time, although a country is enriching itself, it is clear that thousands and millions of 

refugees appear in countries where wars are being waged and people are dying, where production 

and economy are being destroyed. Therefore, local wars are needed that do not have the objective of 

destroying or occupying the territories of the presumed enemy. 

Evaluating the prospects for the development of local wars in the world, it can be noted that there 

will be local wars in the near future, and this cannot be avoided for only one reason: superpowers 

like the United States need them. Modern wars are not fought for victory, but for super profits. 

In short, there will be local wars in the near future, and this cannot be avoided for one reason only: 

these local wars are necessary to benefit powerful countries like the US and China. 

References 

1. Ўзбекистон Республикаси Мудофаа вазирининг «Ўзбекистон Республикаси Мудофаа 

доктринаси – мамлакатнинг ҳарбий соҳада миллий хавфсизлигини таъминлашнинг асоси» 

мавзусида ўтказилган илмий-амалий анжуманида ―Кириш сўзи‖(2018 йил 27 январь, 

акдемия катта мажлислар зали). 

2. «Ўзбекистон Республикаси Мудофаа доктринаси – мамлакатнинг ҳарбий соҳада миллий 

хавфсизлигини таъминлашнинг асоси» мавзусида илмий-амалий анжуманидан ―полковник 

Тоиров Азизжон Икромовичнинг маърузаси‖ (2018 йил 27 январь, акдемия катта 

мажлислар зали). 

3. Россия Федерatsiяси Президентининг 30.11.2016 йилдаги 640-сонли "Россия Федерatsiяси 

ташқи сиѐсати концепциясини тасдиқлаш тўғрисида" ги фармони // спс "Consultant плус". 

4. Ҳарбий енциклопедия. - М.: Билим, 2003-Жилд. 4. — 790 п. 

5. Горбачѐв, А. V., Омелчак В. P. маҳаллий урушлар: инсоният мавжудлигига таҳдид // 

тўпламда: ХХИ аср ѐшлари: келажакка қадам. XVIII минтақавий илмий-амалий 

конференция материаллари. - Благовешченск, 2017. - 55-58 бетлар. Сиѐсатшунослик 45  

6. Клаузевиц, К. уруш ҳақида. - М., 1932. — 315 п.  

7. Дунѐда маҳаллий урушлар кимга керак ва нима учун. - Кириш режими: http://www . ДУНЁ 

уруши. су/геополитика/811-комуи-зачем-нужний-локалние-войни-в-мире (кириш 

28.04.2021). 

8. Малйшева, Е. M. тарихдаги Жаҳон урушлари ва маҳаллий ҳарбий тўқнашувлар: 

оқибатлари, сабоқлари // Адигея Давлат университети Бюллетени. - 2005. - 1-сон. 69-73 

бетлар. 

9. Қорабоғ урушининг янги тафсилотлари ва уни тугатишда Россиянинг роли. - Кириш 

режими: https://news-front . маълумот (кириш 11.05.2021).  

10. Полша, Е. урушдаги бизнес ва нефт билан лаънатланган мамлакатлар. - Кириш режими: 

https://www . правда. ру / иқтисодиѐт / 1256741-бизнес(кириш 28.04.2021). 

11. Чураков, Д. O. кичик урушлар ва маҳаллий можаролар: илмий нутқ муаммолари // Локус: 

одамлар, жамият, маданиятлар, маънолар. - 2018. - 4-сон. - 134-139 бетлар. 



 

American Journal of Science and  Learning for Development Volume 1, No 2|    
Dec - 2022 

 

 
Published by inter-publishing.com  |  All rights reserved. © 2022 
Journal Homepage: http://inter-publishing.com/index.php/AJSLD    

Page 244 

 

12. Шабловский, В. S. Украинадаги инқироз шароитида Россия ва НАТО ўртасидаги 

муносабатлар // поссовет тадқиқотлари. — 2019. - 3-сон. - 44-46 бетлар. 

13. http://www . Кремл. ру / аcц/банк/41451/паге / 4 (кириш 11.03.2019). 

14. Usmonov M. T. The Purpose, Function and History Of The Development Of Mathematical 

Science. International Journal of Engineering and Information Systems (IJEAIS) ISSN: 2643-

640X Vol. 5 Issue 1, January - 2021, Pages: 8-17. 

15. Usmonov M. T. True and False Thoughts, Quantities. International Journal of Academic 

Information Systems Research (IJAISR) ISSN: 2643-9026 Vol. 5 Issue 1, January - 2021, Pages: 

1-5. 

16. Usmonov M. T. Virtual Protected Networks. International Journal of Academic Pedagogical 

Research (IJAPR) ISSN: 2643-9123 Vol. 5 Issue 1, January - 2021, Pages: 55-57. 

17. Usmonov M. T. What Is Solving The Problem? Methods of Solving Text Problems. International 

Journal of Engineering and Information Systems (IJEAIS) ISSN: 2643-640X Vol. 5 Issue 1, 

January - 2021, Pages: 56-58. 


