The structure of world domination

The structure of world domination

The phenomenon of world domination has been explored since the work of Sir Halford Mackinder, who first developed the global geopolitical concept more than a century ago (1). Over the past hundred years, the following questions have been studied with the greatest intensity: 1) the key spatial localization of world domination (exactly what type and sector of space must be mastered to ensure world domination) —Mahan, Mackinder, Spykmen, Lacoste, Galois, Severski, S. Cohen and others; 2) ways to achieve and maintain world domination (except for the above scientists - Modelski, Thompson, Kennedy, Brzezinski, Kissinger, Nai Jr., etc.); 3) general theory of the genesis of the world-leader of the world (for example, J. Modelski identifies four phases of "accumulation of experience", that is, the process of formation of the power-world leader: defining the agenda; building coalitions; macro-solution; execution) (2); 4) relations with the main rival in the struggle to maintain world domination (Brzezinski, Modelski, Bergsten, Gill, Lardy, Mitchell, Lapkin and Pantin).

Note that the very concept of world domination of the above outstanding geopolitics is not defined, its content is interpreted "by default", axiomatically. In our opinion, the exact definition of the concept of “world domination” was given by A.G. Dugin: “to organize the world space on its principles and to its own advantage” - and then this wording is literally given “in passing”! Full quotation: “The powers of the Entente that conquered Germany and Austria represent the core of the“ civilization of the Sea ”, which from now on must realize its unity and take advantage of the victory in order to organize the world space on its own principles and to its advantage” (3). Modern Western authors prefer - in order to comply with political correctness - to use not the concept of "world domination", but such concepts as "world leadership" (Modelski, Kristol, Brzezinski), "world hegemony", "world power" (Brzezinski), "world influence ”(Sestanovich), while not articulating the exact content of these concepts. Modern Russian authors (V.A. Dergachev, B.A. Isaev, E.Ya. Batalov) define world domination through its synonyms - world domination (A.G. Dugin’s variant - world domination), world hegemony (4), which also does not clarify the essence of this phenomenon, since to define a definition is logically incorrect.


The political correctness of formulations in geopolitical texts makes it possible to avoid accusations of geopolitical aggressiveness and “imperial ambitions” both to authors of scientific works and to practicing politicians. However, geopolitical science since its appearance at the end of the nineteenth century is a cynical science, since only directly and clearly expressed intentions allow us to build clear and effective schemes of geopolitical action. We will therefore use the "politically incorrect", but the exact concept of "world domination" and try to give our own definition of this phenomenon. In our opinion, world domination is the absolute control of all geopolitical spaces by the same actor. At the same time, despite the globalist tendencies to reduce the political and geopolitical role of states in the modern world, it seems to us that so far the state remains as an actor as an institution with the largest volume and best structure of resources for exercising control over geopolitical spaces. States have different opportunities for world domination. Control of all types of geopolitical spaces is possible only for a state that has superpower status, i.e. possessing cumulative power that is absolutely superior to the cumulative power of any other state of a given era (5).

Let us explain the words “all geopolitical spaces”. In our opinion, there are four main geopolitical spaces. Along with the geographical space that classical geopolitics considered the only field of geopolitical intentions, during the unfolding of human civilization at the stage of its industrial development, economic space is formed as a geopolitical factor, and at the postindustrial stage - the information space in the aggregate information-ideological and information-cybernetic. Within the framework of the modern geopolitical process, the information space becomes dominant (6).

World domination, encompassing all geopolitical spaces, is undoubtedly a systemic phenomenon, and, like any system, has a certain structure (7). In our opinion, the question of the structure of world domination remains little developed.
Let us turn to the concept of "structure." The Latin term “structura” is translated as “structure, location, order”. In a broader sense, a structure is an organization of content, something that remains unchanged in any transformation of the system that does not change its essence (8). Based on the above, we will try to define the concept of “the structure of world domination”.

The structure of world domination is a set of basic institutions, resources and methods (technologies) of the absolute control of all geopolitical spaces. Thus, the structure of world domination is threefold and contains: 1) institutional, 2) resource and 3) technological substructures. In our opinion, institutions, resources and technologies are precisely the factors that enable the "organization of the content" of world domination. Resources and technologies underlie the phenomenon of the aggregate power of geopolitical actors. Superpower, i.e. the actor of state nature, exercising world domination, has the greatest amount and best quality of resources and technologies to ensure its global status.

The resource substructure of world domination was the subject of a study of generations of scholars, both classical and postclassical, in the development of geopolitical science. We will not retell the well-known concepts of prominent representatives of the geopolitical science of various periods of its development - from Mahan to Brzezinski. We note only that not the resources of the geographic space, but ideological and cybernetic resources play the greatest role in the modern geopolitical process. This fact was recognized in the second half of the last century by the French I. Lacoste and P.-M. Gallua (the leading geopolitical role of the media), and in our time proved by Russian scientists, especially AG Dugin, A.S. Panarin and I.N. Panarin (9). Due to the deep study in the geopolitical literature of the question of the resource substructure of world domination in this article, we will not touch upon it.

The importance of institutional substructures (10) for the effective implementation of world domination was emphasized by Brzezinski in relation to the modern United States of America: “American global supremacy ... is reinforced by a complex system of alliances and coalitions that literally entangles the whole world” (11). It goes without saying that the superpower plays the dominant role in these “alliances and coalitions”. With the help of the aforementioned system, such a major, in our opinion, institution of world domination, as the global system of limitrophes, or the global limitrop of superpower is formed. Here a small discussion about the nature of limitrophes is needed.

In our opinion, the limitrophe in the modern geopolitical epoch is not just a set of border states geographically adjacent to a certain power (12), but a set of states and non-state actors whose spaces are firmly controlled by a powerful state acting in this case as a geopolitical tutor. (A tutor - an English tutor - one who teaches, and also directs classes, teaches.) At the same time, the boundaries are lined up not only in the geographical, but also in the economic and informational and ideological space. The actor of a state or non-state nature, geographically distant from the geopolitical tutor, but included in the economic and informational and ideological space of the tutor and under his political control, can be an element of the limitromof. Since the information revolution in postmodern society is changing the hierarchy of geopolitical spaces, and the informational and ideological space comes first, limitrophe can become ideological or economic in nature and not correlate with the possibilities of geographical control by the tutor. For example, NAFTA is the limit of the United States in the economic space of America, and the former socialist camp, after the destruction of the ideological limit of the USSR, moved into the ideological space of liberal democracies, retaining its limitrophic characteristics. A non-state actor can act as a tutor, for example, a global corporation, but no corporation can have the same aggregate power that a superpower has and cannot build a global limitrop in all its complexity: economic, military, ideological, diplomatic.

In the geopolitical space of satellite countries, within the framework of the limitromof, much smaller resources are used to combat the geopolitical adversary (opponents) than if such a struggle took place directly in the geopolitical space of the expansionist power. Limitrophes take the blows intended for their tutors and allow them to save their strength and resources; at the same time, the most powerful tutors create a whole system of relatively independent from each other limitrofs, covering them at more and more distant frontiers. In addition, limiting states give powerful powers access to previously inaccessible or difficult to access geopolitical zones (open or shadow redistribution of the world).

The elements of the state and non-state nature limit have the following advantage of their position: protection and assistance from the state-tutor in their survival and development - to the limits determined by the aggregate power of the state-tutor and his desire not to create additional problems and new rivals in spaces of interest to him. At the same time, the limiting position may attract social, political and military conflicts provoked in the interests of the tutor to the spaces of specific states or non-state structures.

The author of this article divides states according to the criterion of their aggregate geopolitical power into five status groups: superpowers, great powers, regional superpowers, regional powers, and small states. All of them purposefully build limitrofs, the spaces of which intersect, since the powers and states of lower status themselves belong to the limitrop states of higher status. In accordance with the above, the higher the geopolitical status of a given power, the more multilevel it has. Thus, the second level of the superpower's limitrophic are the limitrophes of the great powers, the third level is formed by the limitrophs of the regional superpowers, the fourth by the capitals of the regional powers, and finally, the fifth is the tiny limitrophs of some small states, the aggregate power of which allows weaker smaller states to subdue.

Of course, states with different geopolitical status play different roles in the limit ruth of the tutor-states, and states with higher status have a certain independence in the framework of the geopolitical process. For its part, the tutoring state behaves differently with respect to the states of the limitrofa, depending on the status of the given limitropic state and the specific geopolitical situation.


Geopolitical practice shows that for a superpower the inclusion of regional first and second regional powers (regional superpower and “simple” regional power) is the most productive. Influence on regional powers allows to control not only geographic, but also all other types of spaces of a particular region. Of course, it is not always the regional power that “drags chestnuts out of the fire” for someone else, since it also realizes its own interests, which may not coincide with the interests of the tutor superpower that has influence on it. On a very limited scale, determined by its insignificant aggregate power, even a small state can have a certain independence with respect to its immediate tutor or the general tutor of the limitrofa. However, the incentives used by superpowers to subordinate lower-status states are so strong that they practically exclude the possibility of disobedience (loans, for example, and increasing interest on them, which become true economic shackles, reliably linking the debtor state's geopolitical).

We emphasize once again that within the limitromor a own geopolitical hierarchy is built, both in accordance with the objectively existing difference in the total power of the actors, and by the targeted efforts of the tutor. States of higher status (that is, those with greater aggregate power in comparison with the rest of the elements of the limitromof) have their own limitedrophies. These lower level limitros are used by the “general tutor” in their own interests through influencing the tutor power of the given limit. However, within the framework of the lower-level limit, the tutor of this limit-rush has some freedom of geopolitical action, determined by the difference between its own combined power and the power of the elements of its limit-break. In connection with this, a lower level tutor may enter into a conflict of interest with the general tutor, using the resources of his own limit ruling as an instrument of opposition. These conflicts are usually situational and short-lived. The lower the level of a tutor, the less he has the capacity to oppose the “general tutor” and tutors of a higher level within the same limit.

Thus, the limitrophe of a superpower is a multi-level entity, including the limitrophes of its constituent powers of a lower geopolitical status. The complexity of such a design predetermines its inconsistency: not only dependent limiting powers can situationally confront the general tutor, but limitrophic states of the second, third and subsequent levels may resort to the protection of the dependent limiting powers in order to achieve greater preferences from the general tutor.

The reflection and expression of the effectiveness of the global limitroph formation process by a superpower is the concentration in its capital of “global institutions reflecting the historical link between global power ... and global interdependence ...” (13), which allows controlling all geopolitical spaces of the limitromoff “from home”, “to within walking distance.

The Global Limit Institute is a tangible expression of the main institution of world domination - the institution of global dependence on a superpower. Superpower superpower in the economic and information space, its absolute military power are the resources that allow to form a high degree of dependence on it of almost any state in the world. The degree of this dependence determines the cumulative power of the limited-state state.

With the help of the global limitrofa formed by the superpower, another important institution of world domination is being built - the global elite loyal to the values ​​and interests of the superpower. These are peculiar "agents of influence" of the world leader in each specific country. Brzezinski describes the modern global elite in the following way: “Representatives of this elite speak fluent English (usually in the American version) and use this language to conduct business; this new global elite is characterized by high mobility, cosmopolitan lifestyle; its main affection is a place of work, usually it is some kind of transnational business or financial corporation ”(14). The global elite of modernity has "globalist views and transnational loyalty" (15). In other words, the global elite (the elite of the global superpower limit) absorbs and translates the lifestyle and value system of the world leader in the societies of the limit state, thereby ensuring its dominance in the spheres of life and consciousness - or, in other words, supporting the dominance of the superpower in the economic and ideological space at the level of everyday life. An important means of forming a global elite on the part of a superpower is an institution such as the education system, as well as the technology of providing educational services to citizens of other countries, including purposefully - for the political, military, economic elite of the global superpower limit. The Institute of Education is both formative and “supportive” in relation to the institution of the global limit.

The global limitrop and the global elite function in all four major geopolitical spaces.

The institution of the global limitrofa is manifested in the ideological space through the institution of the language of global inter-ethnic communication, which cannot be anything other than the state language of a superpower. “The meaning is not contained in the world of objects, external to the speaker, but in the deep structures of the language, in its paradigms. And therefore, each linguistic community, united by language, deals with its own special world, with a special universe of meanings ”(16). The use of the state language of the superpower as a language of political, business and everyday communication to a certain extent changes the cultural code of societies of limitrophe states - firstly at the level of the elite, and then to an ever greater degree, it transforms the semantic structure of mass consciousness. In the same series, in our opinion, there is a change in the alphabet of the language of a limited society - the transition to the alphabet of the state language of a superpower. It would seem that the language itself, its meanings and its grammar in this case do not change, only the external image of the language becomes different - the outline of letters (symbols). However, the symbolic element of the language - its alphabet - also carries with it certain meanings, and with its change the identity of society gradually changes. At the level of the collective unconscious, an ever greater identification with the cultural and social code of the tutoring power takes place, which reinforces the limitropic position of the recipient society.

The key institution of world domination in the ideological space is the so-called pan-idea (K. Haushofer’s term), i.e. ideological system, represented as a universal. The pan-idea allows you to structure the ideological space of the global limitroph in the interests of the superpower, as well as the ideological space of each element of the limitroph, regardless of the nature of this element - state or non-state. The pan-idea, in our opinion, determines the system of principles, on the basis of which the superpower builds a system of international relations corresponding to its interests. In the modern world, such a pan-idea is liberalism with the dominant concept of human rights. The main principle of the previous system of international relations that existed since the middle of the XVII century and was based on the balance of forces of the Sea and Land superpowers, the principle of the inviolability of state sovereignty — a reflection of the geocivilizational independence of the opposing superpowers — is being purposely destroyed. It was the principle of state sovereignty that represented the first “line of defense” of possession of certain resources by nations politically constituted into the state. Today, “soft” state sovereignty is preferable, i.e. the possibility and necessity of overcoming the sovereignty of limitrophe states with the articulated goal of ensuring the full observance of human rights in a particular state.

It must be emphasized that the choice of the fundamental principle of the system of international relations is not accidental, and is also not based solely on the subjective preferences of geopolitical winners. On the contrary, this principle is a reflection of the objective law of the functioning of the corresponding social system. In this case, the principle of human rights is the basic principle of a liberal economic system, for the functioning of which freedom of entrepreneurial activity is absolutely necessary, impossible without a whole system of economic, political and cultural human rights. Since global and transnational corporations are real actors in the international economic space, the principle of human rights is in fact an instrument of “softening” the state sovereignty of certain countries whose resources are tempting to exercise even greater degrees of enterprise freedom of a particular corporation. or superpower (dominant center of power). So, after the occupation of Iraq in the war started by the United States and its allies in 2003, the oil resources of this country (second in the world for oil reserves after Saudi Arabia) were in the exclusive development of two American and two British oil global companies. As you know, the articulated reason for starting the Iraq campaign was the need to protect human rights in Iraq, tyrannically trampled by Saddam Hussein. In accordance with this, the name of the Iraqi military campaign - “Freedom to Iraq”, including the name of its initial stage - “Enduring Freedom” was approved in the USA.

The principles of the functioning of the modern system of international relations are shaped no less in accordance with the fact that the “consumer society” created in the second half of the 20th century in leading capitalist countries requires its further development, that is, new and new resources. It is a fact that a high level of consumption in Western countries is due, in particular, to the fact that they spend 75% of world resources on this. Next - or the termination of consumption growth now, or the removal of this inevitable border to one hundred percent control of the earth’s resources from the totality of Western consumer societies. It is believed that the disadvantages are largely a continuation of the merits. In line with this, it can be argued that the benefits of democracy as the political regime inherent in the West form a solid trap for him. The need to receive the prevailing percentage of votes in elections compels to stimulate the growth of the level and quality of life of a significant part of voters (ideally, all social groups), and this requires mastering new resource bases. Despite the development of high technologies and the articulated reduction of the significance of natural resources, the consumption of oil, gas, water (both for drinking and for the production of electricity and other products) does not decrease, but only increases, causing local wars both geographically and economically. and other types of geopolitical spaces. We repeat that the main obstacle for Western consumer societies to obtain new development resources is precisely state sovereignty, and sovereignty is primarily resource countries. So, the principle of "soft" state sovereignty is the cornerstone for the modern system of international relations and the global limitroph, created in the interests of the only superpower - the United States.

This principle of the new geopolitical system, like the principle of free enterprise within the framework of the social system of capitalism, entails a whole system of principles, logically derived from one another.

Already in the 90-ies of the last century, the idea of ​​establishing an international protectorate for sparsely populated resource countries has become a commonplace in Western economic and political circles as a logical development and addition of the principle of “soft” state sovereignty. Today, a decade later, this idea is supported by the statements of various high-ranking political figures (US Secretary of State C. Rice in the first half of 2000, today - German Chancellor A. Merkel) about the injustice of the fact that nations and states that have the opportunity to control significant natural resources actually usurp the rights of all mankind to these resources. Among the "sparsely populated resource countries" - Brazil, Russia, Mongolia, Australia.

Systematic violation of human rights in a particular state should be punished as follows. Permanent violation of economic human rights - declaring this state bankrupt with the subsequent appointment of external management by international financial organizations (the idea expressed in 2003 by the Deputy Director of the World Bank, but not yet implemented). The systematic violation of the whole complex of political rights of a person and his humanitarian rights may entail the so-called “humanitarian intervention”, i.e. aggression from the "developed democracies". This principle was formulated at the jubilee session of NATO in May 1999 and in the summit’s final document was called the “principle of legal joint international interventionism”. Four “humanitarian interventions” were conducted: Yugoslavia (1999 g.), Afghanistan (2001 g.), Iraq (2003 g.), Libya (2011 g.). Finally, heads of state and leading politicians of countries where human rights are constantly violated must be prosecuted internationally. However, since the international legal base of such prosecution has not been created, the arrest of these politicians (S. Milosevic, B. Plavšić, and others) was called “creative arrest” (the term of the prominent lawyer C. del Ponte).

In this regard, it is not by chance that the formation of the term (Ch. Haze) “failed states”, “failed states” in 90-s, and the “failure” of these states lies precisely in the fact that they cannot form and protect the system of human rights corresponding to the liberal paradigm. The population of “failed states” is not to blame for the failures of politicians who failed to properly build an economic and political system, and therefore should be protected from their own politicians by the above measures: “humanitarian intervention”, “creative arrest” of these politicians and giving them to a specialized international court, as well as a state bankruptcy procedure. Further “developed democracies” will do: they will bring freedom, a full range of human rights on the snow-white wings, and will reward themselves, developed and progressive, with all the resources of this unsuccessful society, making an exchange of symbolic capital (human rights) for real. The term failed states itself also contains an explanation of the need for aggression of an economic or military nature against such states for both winners and losers: we won against you not because we are aggressors and want to live at your expense, you won because you losers, you can not properly dispose of their own resources.

The technological substructure of the system of world domination, in our opinion, is as follows.

Technologies of control of geopolitical spaces (17), of course, vary depending on the type of space, but, in our opinion, all of them are divided into two large groups - panel and point.

Panel we call this type of geopolitical control, which allows absolute domination over most or all of this space. Such control is possible only in non-territorial types of geopolitical space, and its scale increases with the transition from economic to information-cybernetic and to information-ideological space. Panel control in the geographical space of the modern world in its literal form is impossible, but geographic space can be absolutely controlled by a superpower through special forms of control of the economic and especially ideological space. Panel control of a geographical area, i.e. a separate region or, all the more so, a state is quite a workable thing.

Point control of geopolitical spaces is dominance at key points of a given space that determine its quality.

In geographical space, panel control is carried out in only one way, and this is forceful seizure, or war. The legal consolidation of the seizure allows the sovereignty of the expansionist state to be extended to the seized territory and to use the fruits of the illegal actions legally. As a result of the dominance of the pan-idea of ​​liberalism and its key concept, the concept of human rights, the open form of forceful seizure cannot be carried out by a modern superpower without “losing face”. In addition, the number of so-called “threshold states”, i.e. States actually possessing nuclear weapons - a weapon of deterrence - or being on the verge of its creation, has increased exponentially after the collapse of the binary system of the simultaneous existence of the superpowers of the Sea and Land, which does not allow aggression against these states to begin beyond the real danger of causing unacceptable damage to the aggressor.

There are two main ways out of this situation:

1) the use of limitrophe states for the realization of aggression in the interests of the world hegemon, and to a certain extent the interests of the immediate aggressors are realized. An example of the control of geographic space through influence on regional powers is the geopolitical behavior of Pakistan, an ally of the United States. Pakistan has trained the Islamic Taliban and, with its help, the aggression against Afghanistan. The Taliban practically controlled the entire territory of Afghanistan until the autumn of 2001, thus, in particular, ensuring the reorientation of Turkmen and Kazakh oil to the south-east direction of transportation (through the territory of Afghanistan) important for US geopolitical interests, bypassing Russia. The Taliban were not just trained in Pakistan, two regiments and one battalion of the regular Pakistani army fought in their ranks, and a number of Afghan field commanders were career officers of this army. An example of the control of geographic space through influence on a small state is the “08.08.08 war” on the part of Georgia, unsuccessful for it, in relation to the self-proclaimed states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia;

2) “humanitarian intervention”, i.e. armed aggression under the pretext of protecting human rights — usually conducted in a collective manner using allies in the military bloc to “dilute the responsibility” of the real initiator of the aggression. In the modern world, it is mainly this form that is used: control of the Balkans by means of “humanitarian intervention” in the former Yugoslavia in 1999; control of the Middle East and its core - Central Asia with the help of aggression against Afghanistan in 2001; control of the Middle East through the war in Iraq in 2003; control of North Africa and the Maghreb through the war in Libya in 2011

Panel control of a particular state and especially its individual territories, in addition to forceful seizure, can be carried out with the help of demographic aggression (the term of H.D. Mackinder). Demographic aggression can be defined as the illegal entry of one ethnic group into the territory of another, followed by economic and administrative consolidation. Mackinder, who first introduced this term into scientific circulation, considered demographic aggression the most effective means of geopolitical expansion. The effectiveness of this method lies in the fact that demographic aggression is carried out secretly from the authorities of the recipient country for a long time, and this causes a fatal delay in the defensive reaction of the state machine. In principle, a massive demographic aggression can lead to the exclusion of part of the territory of the recipient country in favor of the state, which is a matrix for the expansionist ethnic group. Reception of demographic aggression used Israel to consolidate the territories captured during the Arab-Israeli wars. The demographic aggression of European settlers - along with forceful seizure - was the main method of education for Canada and the United States of America, as well as all Latin American countries.

Forms of point control of geographical space can be called the following.

Placement of military bases in limiting countries. This method, being a point method, can be converted into a panel, if necessary, that is, a forceful grip. Control of geographic space in this case is carried out through the presence of military contingents of the expansionist state in strategically important regions. This makes it possible, firstly, to react quickly to a change in the geopolitical situation in this region unfavorable for the expansionist state, making a forceful seizure of territories or communications, and, secondly, the very possibility keeps the states of the region from temptation to violate the existing geopolitical equilibrium.

Encouraging separatism. Separatism is the desire to separate part of the state’s territory and form a new sovereign state on it. Leaving aside the question of the causes of this phenomenon, we note that in geopolitical terms, separatism allows us to control the space of strategically important regions of the world. Assistance to separatists (weapons, money, personnel, information and diplomatic support) then allows, in the formation of a new sovereign state, to use its territory for building military bases or to use the army of this state as a “watchman” of the territories of the region. Important communications can pass through the territory of a separatist state, it can possess significant natural and demographic resources.

Promotion of terrorism. It is usually carried out in a hidden form, although it sometimes manifests itself openly in the case of ideological support for such support in the form of the recognition of terrorists as “fighters for human rights”, including “fighters for the right of nations to self-determination”. This allows you to control the geographical space in which terrorists operate, as well as to influence the parameters of the economic space and the political course of a particular state. After the 11 attacks of September 2001, terrorism was declared the main global threat of modern times. The “global war against terrorism” launched by the US global superpower at the end of 2001 makes it possible to interfere in the affairs of any state and in any form, even armed, under the pretext of fighting terrorism (a fresh example is NATO aggression against Libya in 2011). Attention is drawn to the fact that the United States opposes mainly so-called "Islamist terrorism" in the territories of Muslim countries rich in hydrocarbons, as well as the marine variety of terrorism - piracy, which is not accidental in the strategically important regions (the seas of Southeast Asia, Gulf of Aden ). The expansion of the superpower in cyberspace is supported by a military structure officially established to counter cyber-terrorism - the US Cyber ​​Command.

The importance of controlling economic space is increasing with the development of the process of globalization and the inclusion of more and more countries in liberal-market relations. Control of the economic space of a particular country allows achieving its geopolitical obedience to the extent that it is economically dependent.

The main forms of control of the economic space are the following (in order of amplification).

Mediation in delivery to the consumer and in the use of energy and other significant goods. This form of control over the economic space makes it difficult or impossible to stop the delivery of goods and energy resources and to set the condition for the resumption of deliveries to fulfill certain requirements of a political or economic nature. Since the last third of the twentieth century, there has been the term “food weapon”, denoting the vital volumes of food supplies to developing and disaster-prone countries, provided on very specific political and economic conditions. Especially effective "food weapons" in Africa, 23 of which are under constant threat of mass starvation. The USA actively uses the named technology (mediation) in their own interests.

Construction of industrial facilities and infrastructure in other countries, the supply of equipment. Industrial facilities and infrastructure are industrial and post-industrial technologies. Having built a plant in another country, an expansionist state binds the given country technologically, as well as in terms of supplying spare parts for machines and units, in terms of consulting specialists. At the same time, private companies based on the territory of the expansionist state can build industrial facilities, geopolitical benefits — with their hands — will still be extracted by the state. It is not without reason that the structures of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the expansionist state and even the heads of state often join large contracts. Roads and other infrastructure facilities, like all other material entities, tend to become unusable over time. Supplies of construction and repair equipment, specialists are the means of preserving the economic dependence of the recipient country. Of course, a liberal economy is impossible without the international division of labor and, accordingly, without the participation of foreign capital in economic development. However, the point is not in this fact in and of itself, but to a degree, in the scale of the foreign presence in the economy of a particular country. Again, it is the United States that today uses this geopolitical technology most intensively.

Providing loans. In our opinion, this is the main form of geopolitical control of the economic space. The larger the loan amount and the harder it is for the debtor state to return it, the more stringent expansionist demands may be made by the lender. Payment of the loan amount and interest on it is often converted for a country with an underdeveloped economy into a difficult or even insoluble problem. In this case, the debtor and the creditor are negotiating debt restructuring, i.e., deferring payments. Payments are postponed, but the main condition for this is usually an increase in the annual interest on the loan. So the following may happen: the total loan amount becomes much larger than the initial one. In February, the IMF (International Monetary Fund) 2000 introduced new rules for controlling loan spending. These rules actually provide the Fund or “independent international auditors” access to all the basic financial secrets of the country applying for loans. Control over the activities of international credit and financial institutions themselves is also one of the forms of economic expansion. So, the USA today dominates in all large international financial and credit structures, in particular, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, as well as the London and Paris clubs of creditors. This gives them the opportunity to set the conditions for granting loans to a particular country through international structures.

Embargo. Sanctions. An embargo is a complete ban on trade (extends either to the entire volume of trade relations, or to any particular type of goods). Sanctions - restriction of trade exchange in a certain area or deprivation of trade benefits and preferences. The method is applied to bring one or another state to geopolitical obedience. The imposition of sanctions or embargoes are both international organizations (the UN, the OSCE, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, etc.) and individual states, primarily the United States.

Economic blockade (complete prohibition of all forms of economic contacts with a particular state). It is used much less frequently than other forms of economic influence on a geopolitical adversary, since it is very difficult to implement. The reason: in some cases, economic interest turns out to be stronger than any sanctions and prohibitions, and only its manifestation changes - economic contacts, instead of openly implemented, are implemented secretly. The United States and their states of the border have been blockading the Republic of Cuba since the 60 of the last century.

Of the listed methods of controlling the economic space, the first two are point-like, the third and fifth are panel, and the fourth is combined.

Control information cyber space. The panel method of controlling the information space is the control of the production and sale of a software product. In the modern period, the main monopolist in the production and sale of a software product is the American private corporation Microsoft. At the beginning of Microsoft’s work, there were rumors of close ties between this company and the National Security Agency (NSA) of the United States: the latter allegedly helped Microsoft defeat its main competitor, IBM, a powerful company that actively promoted its own software product. The reason for the help from the NSA is that Microsoft agreed to install the so-called “bookmarks” in its products, i.e. programs for opening encrypted messages (which is not the leadership of IBM). It is curious that one of these tabs was called NSAKEY - from the abbreviation NSA, which means the US National Security Agency, and the word key, i.e. key. Considering that Windows is used in many countries of the world, including economic corporations and military departments, bookmarks like NSAKEY open up the widest field of cybernetic control of information in the geopolitical interests of the United States and American corporations.

Point methods of cyberspace control - the spread of computer viruses and hacker attacks. There was a special kind of hacking - military hacking. Two countries of the modern world have the so-called "network troops" - this is China, which created such units first (2008 g.), And the United States (2010 g.).

Control of ideological space. This type of geopolitical space contains mental values ​​produced in the framework of educational programs and scientific developments, in the creation of works of literature and art, as well as in the media.
Let us point out the following methods of controlling the ideological space.

The introduction of the mental values ​​of the expansionist state in the mass consciousness of the recipient state. Thanks to this, the ideological space of a given country becomes part of the ideological space of an expansionist, and the geopolitical expansion produced by the latter at the expense of a given country in other types of spaces is no longer perceived by the recipient as aggression.

Currently, this technology is carried out using radio and television broadcasting, distribution of printed publications in other countries. The greater the volume of broadcasting and distribution of print publications, the greater the degree of control of the ideological space. A superpower, by definition, has the largest distribution of its electronic and print media - a global scale. The reorientation of educational systems, scientific directions, the process of creating works of literature and art in a particular country to the mental values ​​of a superpower is also used. The main stimulus of reorientation is the provision of bonuses and grants from charitable or official structures of the expansionist state. In addition, the active introduction of samples of expansionist mass culture into the ideological space of the recipient is practiced.

The mental values ​​of the superpower are being introduced into the ideological space of other countries through the training of national personnel for other countries in the educational institutions of the superpower. As a rule, living in a certain country and studying in its language for several years subsequently leads to the fact that the trainee largely perceives the mental values ​​of that country as his own. Thus, the greater the number of specialists in key industries, science and art will be mentally identical to the state expansionist, the more they will become the individual actors of its geopolitical expansion. The largest number of foreign students and students today - in the United States.

Control of ideological space with the help of religious mental values ​​is especially strong, since religious dogmas have an aura of eternity and sanctification by supernatural powers. Religion was often used as an effective means of geopolitical expansion (missionary work), and sometimes geopolitical expansion directly took the form of religious action (crusades). Modern superpower in direct form does not use this type of control.

The creation and dissemination of myths with both positive and negative cognitive meaning. The myth of the absolute and imperishable nature of the ideological values ​​that dominate the culture of a superpower is an effective way to control the ideological space of both the geopolitical adversary (s) and the global limitroph. Myths with negative cognitive meaning are used to destroy the ideological space of a geopolitical adversary and to weaken its mental resistance. The specialists of the American corporation “Rand” propose the term “infosphere” as a synthesis of cyberspace and the media. The “information weapon” used in the infosphere is not only an information product for electronic networks, but also ideological programs for influencing the mind used by the media. The experts at Rand are aware of the potential of information weapons as “weapons of mass destruction of a new type.” It is recommended to create “special forces of information” modeled on special forces - for actions in the infosphere.

The listed methods of control of the ideological space are largely panel in nature. Point methods in the control of ideological space are difficult to isolate. Rumors are one of the few point methods of controlling ideological (mental) space. Rumors are usually anonymous, it is impossible to establish the real original source of their distribution. At the same time, rumors are transmitted from person to person, i.e., through familiar people, which gives them a tinge of trust and truthfulness. Rumors are often used to discredit politicians or entire states in order to achieve a certain degree of geopolitical weakening of a particular state.
It is also possible to single out complex (combined) technologies for controlling geopolitical spaces.

Palace and state coups. The palace coup is a forcible change of the head of state in order to change the country's political course. The coup d'état is a forced change in the composition, structure, and functions of all three branches of government. Coups are a very effective form of space control. As a result of a coup in a particular country, a more powerful expansionist state can get a whole range of geopolitical opportunities: from locating military bases and obtaining profitable concessions to full control of all types of spaces of a given state. Of course, not every coup has a geopolitical background and is initiated by a geopolitical adversary, but it also happens. The geopolitical significance of the coups confirms and vividly illustrates the fact that in 1999, the US Congress even passed a special law that legitimized the US attempts to carry out a coup d’etat in Iraq by the hands of Shiite radicals.

The turn of the last centuries brought such a complex technology of absolute control of spaces as network warfare. It is possible to give the following definition of a network war: this is the total destruction of the basic characteristics of a certain nation in all types of geopolitical spaces at the same time, carried out mainly in a hidden form. In the network war uses the entire amount of the above technologies. At the same time, depending on the specific period and tasks of influencing the enemy, one or another sphere of public life may become a priority object of aggression in comparison with others. The goal of a network war is to firmly consolidate the entire aggregate of the resources of the adversary society to the geopolitical aggressor, and the victim’s “transfer” of these resources to the aggressor is largely voluntary and eager, because it is perceived not as aggression, but as an additional impetus to the upward development. In this regard, the network war is much more difficult to implement than the traditional "hot", but also immeasurably more effective. The results of the “hot war” are usually challenged and eroded over time (we can see this in the example of the First and especially the Second World Wars). The results of a network war can exist for centuries - until such time as the aggressor actors themselves and their basic needs change. The main front of the network war is located in the mental space, where the enemy’s goal is to destroy the traditional basic values ​​of a given nation and implant its own. The fact of the conduct and structure of this type of war cannot be recognized at the level of mass consciousness. If the political elite of a society that has become the object of a network war does not have enough qualifications to identify network aggression and to organize an adequate response, then such a society is doomed to a crushing geopolitical defeat. The network wars of the post-industrial informational era of the Postmodern differ from the “ordinary” wars of the industrial period of Modernity by the desire for a seemingly bloodless solution of the tasks of redistributing spaces and resources (18).

Such, in our opinion, is the structure of world domination, taken in its most general form. Almost all of the above elements of this structure, except those that appeared in the late industrial or post-industrial era, are applicable to any system of world domination - from the ancient world to modernity, only their hierarchy changes. Of course, it is necessary to note the fact that the very phenomenon of world domination has different localization depending on the historical epoch - the world (global) domination itself becomes only after the formation of a planetary civilization.

Each type of geopolitical space has its own substructure of world domination, containing the same basic elements (institutions, resources, technology), but these are the themes of individual studies.


1. This concept was first outlined by H.D. Mackinder 25 January 1904 at the meeting of the Royal Geographical Society of Great Britain in the report “Geographical axis stories". The report was later published as an article in The Geographical Journal. In Russian, see: Mackinder H. Geographical axis of history. // Polis. 1995. No. 4. - or http://geopolitics.nm.ru/mackinder.html
2. In Russian, see: Modelski. The Evolution of Global Politics. // Polis. 2005. No. 3.
3. Dugin A.G. Geopolitics. Textbook for universities. - M .: Academic project, 2011. C. 88.
4. See, for example: V.A. Dergachev. Geopolitics. Russian geopolitical encyclopedia. - Article "World Hegemony." // http://dergachev.ru/Russian-encyclopaedia/12/80.html
5. For more details see: Komleva N.A. The geopolitical status of the state: the essence and typology. // Geopolitics and security. 2010. No. 1 (9). C. 23 - 29.
6. For more details, see: Komleva N.A. The phenomenon of expansion. - Ekaterinburg, ed. Ural Un-ta, 2002. - 317 with.
7. The volume of the article does not allow to delve into the question of the difference between the phenomenon of the structure of world domination and the phenomenon of world order. We note only that, generally speaking about the world order, we have in mind the specifics of the balance of world centers of power and the principles of building a world order, which, in our opinion, is not equivalent to the phenomenon of the structure of world domination.
8. Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 1983. C. 657.
9. See: A. Dugin. Post-Modern Geopolitics. M .: Amphora, 2007; Panarin A.S. Pravda of the Iron Curtain. - M .: Algorithm, 2006; Panarin I.N. Information warfare and geopolitics. - M .: Generation, 2006.
10. If you follow E. Durkheim, then a political institution is understood as a set of regulatory standards that materialize in the activities of certain organizations. According to M. Weber, a political institute is an education, institution, community of individuals with signs of supra-individuality. In this case, both of these approaches are used.
11. Z. Brzezinski. The Great Chess Board. American supremacy and its geostrategic imperatives. - M .: International Relations, 2010. C. 41.
12. See: V.L. Tsymbursky Russia is the land beyond the Great Limitsrophy: civilization and its geopolitics. M., 2000.
13. Brzezinski Z. Choice. Global domination or global leadership. - M .: International Relations, 2010. C. 161.
14. Ibid. S. 162.
15. Ibid.
16. Dugin A.G. Geopolitics. Textbook for universities. - M .: Academic project, 2011. C. 162.
17. In our opinion, geopolitical technology is a special case of social technology, which can be defined as a combination of means and methods of purposeful influence on a certain social object. As applied to geopolitical objects of influence, such a type of social technologies as geopolitical is distinguished.
18. More about network war: Network wars: the threat of a new generation. Digest of articles. M .: Eurasian Movement, 2009
Author:
Komleva N.A.
Originator:
http://akademiagp.ru/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

13 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in