Hybrid War: Problems and Prospects for Post-Conflict Settlement
19 February 2015 of the year in our edition was held the already traditional expert round table organized by the independent expert-analytical center "EPOHA". This time, the problem of post-conflict settlement in wars of a new type, often referred to as “guided chaos” or hybrid wars, was introduced as a topic for creative discussion. The essence and content of these wars were discussed at the previous expert round tables held in the editorial board of the Independent Military Review.
The debates and discussions at the round table were vivid and emotional, the experts touched on various aspects of post-conflict settlement, and their assessments did not always coincide. However, in the main point everyone was united.
First, in today's geopolitical conditions, the problem of resolving military conflicts has become incredibly difficult, requiring tremendous efforts by the international community. Secondly, in today's interconnected and interdependent world, any action or provocation in the far corner of the globe can easily lead to a regional or even global military conflict. And, thirdly, in the modern world there are forces that, even despite the instinct of self-preservation, are ready to plunge humanity into the abyss of Armageddon.
Below are brief abstracts of experts who participated in the discussion at the round table.
"YOU WANT A WORLD - WINNING THE MUTE BOILER!"
Yury Baluevsky, Army General, Chief of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces (2004 – 2008)
Post-conflict peace-building has always been and, I am sure, will be a serious problem and an ordeal for both individual states and international organizations. Especially today, when the world order determined by the Yalta and Potsdam agreements of the mid-twentieth century is being replaced by a new world order with a radically different geopolitical configuration. The US bid at all costs to retain leadership in the world, to impose its values, to indicate to other countries their place in the international and economic conditions of this world order lead to an increase in conflict in the world.
It is disturbing that the course of the United States and its allies is aimed at reformatting the population of unwanted countries through their chaos. This goal is achieved in various ways using all modern information, communication and social technologies. At the same time, military conflicts (external and internal) receive beautiful names: “network” and “cyber war”, and now “hybrid war”!
What is a hybrid war? New form or forgotten old?
There are different interpretations of this concept. As a result, experts sometimes can not understand each other. How would we in these scientific delights not go far from the essence. From those provisions that have long been developed by military science.
On the subject of the degradation of military art, I already spoke on the pages of the Independent Military Review in August 2014 with my colleague Colonel Musa Khamzatov who was here. Over time, this problem, in our opinion, is only getting worse ...
In fact, the war was and remains a bloody and inhuman affair, carrying grief to all its participants. Rather, one can even say that inside the beautiful wrapper from the fascinating name of any modern war we will see a tendency towards increasing cruelty and negative consequences.
Now directly about the problems of post-conflict settlement. Because of the format of our meeting I will speak thesis.
A new specific factor that significantly complicates the process of post-conflict settlement is the close intertwining (up to merging) in the zone of conflict of interest of state actors, network of rebel and terrorist organizations and transnational organized crime. Therefore, it is so difficult not only to quickly and quickly resolve the accumulated contradictions, but also to simply understand the situation.
Genocide, organized crime, terrorism, trade weapons and drug trafficking, interethnic and interfaith tensions are increasingly causing prolonged armed conflicts, making it difficult to resolve them with the help of international organizations.
The harshness of military conflicts also has a negative effect on post-conflict settlement.
In principle, all this was yesterday and the day before yesterday and is not something completely new. But today, new information and technological capabilities make it possible to do it more effectively, hitting deeper the mental basis of the enemy, the country's population and the international community.
As a consequence, the post-conflict settlement is becoming more and more difficult. Defragmentation of the people of the state - the victim of aggression, the emergence of new actors in international relations during the fighting, the disintegration, and often the direct destruction of part of the elite of all parties to the conflict make the settlement process very difficult, sometimes requiring years of focused work to restore peace and tranquility.
Today, a comprehensive peacekeeping policy is required to ensure the prompt restoration of the world order in the post-conflict space and minimizing the risks of renewed conflict.
An important problem of post-conflict settlement, even today, in the age of information technology, is the lack of coordination between all the participants in solving diverse, “hybrid” tasks. The situation is sometimes poorly coordinated not only between the departments of various states participating in the post-conflict settlement, but also between the departments of one country. This often delays the post-conflict settlement process.
It is necessary, in my opinion, to intensify the process of development and improvement of the legal and theoretical framework for post-conflict settlement. Many documents adopted in the twentieth century need to be revised and adjusted in the light of the international experience gained in recent decades, including in the CIS spaces.
Equally important is the joint education and training of military, police and civilian personnel to participate in peacekeeping missions during hybrid wars.
The time has come for more intensive working out of post-conflict settlement measures in the framework of the organization and conduct of territorial defense in the regions even in peacetime. However strange it may sound now ...
Another problem of post-conflict settlement is also acute: personnel. Today, more than ever in the last 50 – 70 years, the problem of having specialists in the field of post-conflict settlement — carriers of creative, sensible, understandable, acceptable ideas and people of the business, good organizers — rose to its full height. Unfortunately, we do not pay enough attention to this problem. At the same time, the development of technology, technology and social sciences requires a quick understanding of new problems, the development of proposals aimed at preventing military conflicts, minimizing their consequences.
Today we are simply obliged to follow very closely the development of the situation in the world, especially in those countries where bloody spring has already swept. And the situation in the world is not easy. And it is dangerous to build illusions that the states that are the organizers and sponsors of the color revolutions of recent years may take pity on any nation.
All signs indicate that a number of Western political figures have a desire to continue transforming the state elite of unwanted countries into communities of people who do not have their own identity and are ready to fulfill all the requirements that they prescribe.
At one time, the great Russian classic Mikhail Lermontov, comprehending the state of contemporary Russian society, remarked: people were fed with sweets, their stomach deteriorated from this. For treatment you need bitter medicines, caustic truths. Today, these words are relevant to all: for residents of the West, and for us.
Today, the West is making every effort to make Russia a world outcast. “We mobilized and led international efforts to punish Russia,” this is recorded in the US National Security Strategy, adopted in February of this year. So the war against Russia continues, and it plans to achieve its goals by prioritizing the use of information and communication technologies, political and other provocations for forcing anti-Russian sentiments in the world.
In order not to become extras in that terrible "show", which was called color revolutions, and not to become participants in the notorious hybrid wars, not to slip into the chaos planned by our ill-wishers, we have to call the bitter bitter, the bad - the bad. And take appropriate measures, look for allies, enter into alliances with them so that no one has any thought about the possible reformatting of Russia with impunity. We want peace - it means that we need to prevent mist-beige on our territory.
WARS OF MODERN EPOCH: IS POST-CONFLICT SETTLEMENT POSSIBLE?
Igor Popov, scientific director of the independent expert-analytical center "EPOHA"
In any case, wars ever come to an end, even those that have lasted for decades. But there are situations when a war comes to a dead end: neither of the parties has enough strength, means, will and determination to win. History knows many examples of protracted, prolonged wars and armed conflicts, when hot stages alternated with relatively calm stages, in order to return to bloody clashes. This trend in modern geopolitical conditions is becoming more and more common.
For decades there have been bloody conflicts in the Middle East, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Syria has been burning for years. Humanity has been challenged by the IS. Through 70 years after the Great Victory over fascism, the war came to the lands of Donbass and Luhansk region, in close proximity to the borders of the Russian Federation.
These wars and armed conflicts are chaotic; involvement of a wide range of participants; the action of regular and irregular formations that use non-standard forms and methods of warfare; the increasing role and importance of non-military means in the arsenal of war (sabotage and provocations, information operations, operations in cyberspace, financial and economic instruments of influence, operations of cognitive influence, etc.); extreme cruelty and massive crimes against humanity. It is not by chance that in this context, political scientists and military experts speak of such phenomena as the war of controlled chaos or hybrid war.
The war in the modern era of a unipolar world is primarily a civilizational phenomenon precisely in the sense that S. Huntington put into the concept of “civilization”. From this angle, war is impossible between the developed, civilized states of the West. The war in this paradigm is the lot of poor, "underdeveloped", "uncivilized", "failed" states. A war can always and must be fought "somewhere out there", far from its home - in Africa, Latin America, Asia or, at least, on the periphery of Europe - in the Balkans or Ukraine. The Western powers in this situation always act in the noble role of liberators, saviors and defenders.
The dirty side of the war is genocide and mass killings, destruction of people's habitat, hunger and cold, epidemics and unsanitary conditions, despair and hopelessness always fall to the share of the most "non-civilized" countries and regions that are prepared for systemic chaos, social upheavals, economic degradation. True causes, driving forces and goals of wars are often left behind the scenes, although too often the formal logic of reasoning in search of answers leads to the “civilized” West.
The practical consequence of this is that revolutions, wars and armed conflicts in different regions of the globe arise, rather than for objective reasons, but as a result of the influence of some external forces. By and large, not so much depends on the parties involved in the conflict.
Kiev Maidan showed how little is needed to initiate an armed conflict. Reuters Photos
Hence the conclusion that post-conflict settlement today is not achievable in the format of participation of only the immediate parties to the conflict, even with the goodwill of the latter and with international peacekeeping assistance. The fate of resolving an intrastate conflict, not to mention an interstate military conflict, is often in the sphere of interests of some external “customer” players capable of exerting the most serious and sometimes decisive influence on the course, outcome and outcome of any political crisis or conflict.
In this regard, the question arises about the possibility in principle to resolve current and future military conflicts. It all depends on what kind of meaning is embedded in the concept of "post-conflict settlement."
Any military conflicts (wars) hypothetically can end in one of two states:
- final resolution of the complex of irreconcilable contradictions, claims, offenses, that is, the victory of one of the parties, and then the opposing party fulfills all the conditions and requirements of the winner (unconditional victory);
- solving (as a rule, temporary) problems in relations between the parties to the conflict on one or another basis, and then diplomats and politicians enter the business, who must, often with the help of international mediators, find a compromise that satisfies all parties.
It is obvious that in the first case no conflict resolution is required by definition. The winner imposes his will on the losing side, and the latter, if it is allowed, can be engaged in “licking wounds”, restoring the economy, and social problems.
In the second case, a post-conflict settlement is required, which covers virtually all spheres of life and activities of war-affected actors. This is an incredibly difficult task, if only because in modern military conflicts it becomes difficult to decide on the composition of the participants altogether. The civil war in Ukraine is a good example. On the one hand, Kiev at the official level does not see the DPR and LPR (the international formula: “There are no negotiations with terrorists”), and on the other hand, the central government does not control a huge number of volunteer battalions, terbats and other formations of “private” oligarchic structures. So who, with whom and about what to negotiate?
The situation in Syria is even more complicated: the forces of Bashar al-Assad are opposed by the forces of the motley opposition, in whose ranks thousands of militants from all over the world are fighting. The West does not recognize the legitimately elected President of Syria in its country and supports the so-called moderate opposition. The expected consequence is the appearance of the IG.
The conclusion, unfortunately, is formed by the pessimistic: military conflicts of the new type, which we are currently witnessing in different regions of the world, are products of social manipulation and are developing according to harsh apocalyptic scenarios written for them by some external forces. Post-conflict resolution of such conflicts, if there is no approval of the “customers”, is possible only in the form of a temporary solution to the problems. Until the appropriate signal from the true “customer” is received, the conflict will fester and bleed further.
In this context, the role of the UN and other international institutions and instruments of peacemaking, as evidenced, for example, by the experience of the dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia, seems extremely limited.
HYBRID WAR: WHO NEEDS PEACE?
Musa Khamzatov, chief analyst of the independent expert-analytical center "EPOHA"
An analysis of the nature of the armed conflicts of recent years suggests that a number of new features have appeared in their content that directly affect post-conflict settlement.
First of all, conflicts have ceased to fit into the framework of a simple black and white construction: this is a military conflict, and then - an armed conflict; this party to the conflict is legitimate, and that is not; the claims of this party are legal, and the other is illegal, etc. Uniqueness was not all.
Particularly destructive consequences for universal peacekeeping practice is the principle advocated by the West “who is not with us is against us”. It significantly destabilizes the world community, leading to numerous armed conflicts and humanitarian disasters.
A negative role is also played by the desire of some countries to consolidate the status of a unipolar world that has developed since the collapse of the USSR, using the mechanisms of peacekeeping to promote their interests. As a result, the UN is increasingly hampered in determining its position on this or that armed conflict and its resolution.
A number of other equally important factors that complicate the processes of modern post-conflict settlement deserve special attention: globalization; devaluation of the role of the UN; a significant increase in the role of non-state actors in the conflict; degradation of the middle class; urbanization; new war technologies (including decentralized planning and execution; a combination of traditional and non-traditional tactics based on miniaturization and increasing the combat effectiveness of weapons, etc.); widespread use of social technology.
I will briefly dwell only on the factor of globalization.
It would seem that the process of world economic and financial integration should only have a positive impact on the practice of post-conflict settlement. After all, the world community had powerful levers of concentration of economic efforts for the rapid recovery of the affected areas or economies. But in practice this does not happen.
Let's see, for example, the situation in Libya and Iraq. If we omit the numerous private factors affecting the post-conflict settlement in these states, then we see that the years have passed since the West has forcibly replaced their political leadership, but there is no order. Internal conflicts flare up with a new force, tens of thousands of ordinary people are dying, and no one talks about peacekeeping operations. Nobody recovers the economy. No one is in a hurry to create human conditions for their citizens. Why? The answer is simple and frightening in its obviousness: in the context of globalization, their main production is already replaced by the economies of other countries. First of all, those who provided the initial chaos.
Conclusion: to organize post-conflict settlement and restore the main sectors of the economy of the states that were the victims of reformatting as a result of color revolutions, hybrid wars or other new technologies, no one will. In the context of globalization, the replacement of players who have dropped out of the world economy is taking place too quickly.
This conclusion fully applies to Ukraine. Unfortunately for his people, the sponsors of euromaidan, with the ardent desire of their individual representatives, cannot go against objective economic laws. To restore the industry of Ukraine to the West means to some extent to curtail its own. To which no one will go. This would be especially stupid in the face of the ongoing global economic crisis. And there are no fools on the global chessboard. More precisely, they very quickly drop out of the game ...
Therefore, the consequences of a modern military conflict for any state that is a victim of aggression are and will be the same: sluggish war of “all against all”; degradation and disintegration; enslaving contracts with "friends" for the restoration of the economy and infrastructure; economic slavery. And on the part of the “world community” - a sluggish imitation of attempts at post-conflict settlement.
With regard to the population of Ukraine, this only means that the huge loans that are now given to it by various international organizations are not aimed at really helping, but at ensuring its debt dependence for many decades to come. And will Ukraine ever be able to pay off such debts (and they will probably only increase!) - a very big question. And such a fate awaits any country - the sacrifice of the next color revolution.
Confirmation of this conclusion is the fact that loans to Ukraine are allocated, despite the fact that its position often does not meet the most basic requirements for a borrower, stated in the charters of the lenders themselves. As the saying goes, “only business, nothing personal”!
In the arsenal of modern "puppeteers", confidently leading their next victim into economic slavery, today there are a number of new techniques. In particular, the problem for post-conflict settlement was a significant increase in the role of non-state actors in the military conflict in its resolution. The conflicting parties, ceasing active hostilities, are sometimes unable to come to a political settlement of the existing contradictions themselves. One of the reasons is the action of a third force. The miniaturization and increased combat power of weapons allow small groups of militants of unknown affiliation to effectively disrupt the peace process. And, unfortunately, there are many such technologies.
In conclusion, I would like to note a number of basic conditions, without which no post-conflict settlement can be achieved:
the real desire of world leaders to end the conflict;
state stability in neighboring countries;
the provision of massive humanitarian assistance by the international community;
operational recovery of the economy and social structure.
Events in Ukraine, continuing since the beginning of 2014, show how little is needed to initiate an armed conflict, and how difficult it is to restore even a fragile peace. A world needed by all.
But not all this, unfortunately, is understood.
ALL BEGAN IN AFGHANA
Norat Ter-Grigoryants, Retired Lieutenant-General, Deputy Chief of the Main Staff of the Land Forces of the USSR Armed Forces (1983 – 1991)
For the first time, I encountered the problems of post-conflict settlement in Afghanistan in 1980, where, as part of the limited contingent of Soviet troops, I had the position of first deputy commander - chief of staff of the 40 army from scratch from scratch to organize combat use and life of subordinate troops, but also to help build peaceful life of the local population.
The participation of Soviet troops in the fighting on the territory of Afghanistan was not originally intended. The order of using weapons for self-defense was not even defined. It was believed that Soviet troops would take important industrial and other objects under protection and become garrisons, and parts of the Afghan army would fight with the opposition fighting units. We proceeded from the fact that a regular army with modern weapons will be able to quickly defeat Pashtun guerrillas armed with old weapons and not having modern means of communication and intelligence.
No one could have imagined that the USA would start a new type of war, which is now called a hybrid one. They will purposefully pump up the region with weapons and specialists, provoke government and Soviet troops to fire on villages and other peaceful objects. Provide militants with extensive diplomatic, informational and financial support. It was the US intervention that, in words, spoke from the UN rostrum for peace in Afghanistan, made this war so bloody and protracted.
According to the official version, US assistance to the Mujahideen began in 1980, after the Soviet army entered Afghanistan. But as it became known after the collapse of the USSR, a secret decree authorizing the financing of anti-government forces in Afghanistan, US President Carter signed another 3 on July 1979 of the year. Six months before the decision of the Soviet leadership to send troops to Afghanistan! How did they know that the Soviet army would go in there? Have you planned it yourself? One cannot help believing in a conspiracy thesis about "agents of influence" in the leadership of the USSR.
Over time, the United States was able to create a fairly effective system for providing Mujahideen. Streams of militants, the supply of weapons and all the necessary material means went into Afghanistan from abroad on a conveyor belt.
It was not possible to block the supply channels of the Mujahideen, as there was an almost continuous stream of small caravans. Fighting them was similar to fighting a bee swarm: you can see everyone, and it is very difficult to kill a specific bee with a rifle or, all the more so, to hit the whole swarm. The situation was aggravated by the connection to this insidious game of other regional players: China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran.
The problem was that the Mujahideen acted under the guise of the population. The fighting took place nonstandard: it was guerrilla and terrorist actions with the subsequent transition to the classic actions or rebellious actions, including terrorism.
26 years ago, Soviet troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan. In the West, they did not hide their joy in this regard, emphasizing their role in the training and supply of militants. And why were you happy? They didn’t give us peace to live in Afghanistan, nor could they themselves! Their whole enthusiasm for the "democratization" of Afghanistan ended in September 2001, after the terrorist attack on the United States. Sami led their troops there 14 years ago and what did they achieve? The stated goals and objectives remain unfulfilled.
As a result, the war has almost completely destroyed the country's not-so-developed economy. The military-political situation is still unstable. Neither ISAF (International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan), nor NATO could solve their tasks in practice.
It is terrible that civilian casualties by all parties to the conflict are considered to be a side effect. And these sacrifices are huge. For example, only in 2014 year, according to UN estimates, more than 10 thousand civilians died in the country.
Afghanistan today has become a “gray zone”, a fertile territory for the recruitment and training of militants. The metastases of terrorism from there easily penetrate the territory of Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Russia, along with all these republics and Kazakhstan, needs to take urgent measures to systematically counter the threat of a hybrid war from this direction. This is a very, very serious threat to all of us.
The geostrategic opponents of Russia are launching an offensive against the post-Soviet states on all sides, in accordance with local conditions. Scenarios can be different. Some in the Caucasus, others in the south, and others in the East. For example, in Ukraine, Russia's western neighbor, the bet is placed on nationalism and chauvinism. But the result is always the same - a fratricidal war.
It is necessary to note this fact. In a foreign military presence, the problems of post-crisis recovery in any country are solved very slowly. And the desire of “peacekeepers” to carry out state reforms in accordance with their standards seriously hampers the development of viable national structures of local government.
My deep conviction - the successful cessation of modern wars and post-conflict settlement is possible only through the active efforts of the entire international community led by the UN. If all participants of international politics put at the forefront not their immediate geopolitical interests, but the most important interest of all normal people - peaceful coexistence!
ABOUT HYBRID WAR IN THE LIGHT OF THE IDEAL HERITAGE OF RUSSIAN MILITARY CLASSICS
Alexander Savinkin, editor of the Russian Military Collection
Today, more and more talk about the wars of the new type. This is not unusual. War is developing. At the same time, in essence, the war still remains the same as Karl Clausewitz defined it almost 200 years ago - “a clash of significant interests”, “bloody resolution of the crisis”, “continuation of politics by other means” (others - not only military) “An act of violence, with the aim of forcing the enemy to fulfill our will,” “a dangerous, unpredictable affair,” “a real chameleon.”
Modern war is increasingly disguised as a world, becoming blurred, not always obvious. But it is, as before, dangerous and mysterious, and most importantly - more and more provocative, dirty. Large-scale interstate conflicts, which have become suicidal and too expensive, have faded into the shadows. Their place was taken by small wars and low-intensity conflicts.
The war, if viewed from the point of view of historical development, becomes more complicated. Conducted in an increasingly wide range of actions: traditional and unusual, direct and indirect (non-linear), combat and "non-military." It is becoming more complex and integral. And also - high-tech, informational, regular and irregular. And at the same time, it is still a war of armies, a war of peoples and a war of various groups fighting, as before, for power, existence, influence, resources, territories, etc.
Many new tendencies of war were noted as early as the 20s of the last century by our domestic military thinkers. So they did not become, however, the prophets in their homeland. Not then, not today.
The “strategy” of Major General Alexander Svechin - “Russian Clausewitz” is seriously studied in the West in military academies. But not at home. We have the main idea Svechin usually reduced to an explanation of the strategy of "starvation". In fact, our military classic in his solid work justified the whole system of preparing and waging a future war, combined strategy, operational art and tactics into one whole. He described the nature of work on numerous "war fronts" - political, diplomatic, economic (up to the creation of an "economic general staff"), internal (providing security in the rear), in the area of undermining the enemy's spirit and in the sphere of armed struggle.
The idea of the complexity of the future war defended in his work, Lieutenant General Andrei Snesarev. In the article “Grimaces of Strategy”, our “Russian Sun Tzu” emphasized that periods free from warfare must be filled with “non-military operations.” In them, "the strategy does not work with the sword, but with other means, even if they are alien: by agitation, by crushing the enemy's economy, by overtaking in recreating our forces, etc." Therefore, the strategic commander under new conditions will have to have “some kind of condensed brains”, “some kind of immense knowledge, some kind of exceptional outlook and insight. He has to be a military man, a politician, and an economist and financier, and a comprehensive technician, and a persistent agitator. ”
Modern wars, which in the West are called hybrid, represent a whole range of multi-level systemic actions, a mixture of classical and irregular warfare, a combination of military and non-military, permitted and prohibited methods of struggle, the use of "conventional war, small war, cyber war, information war." These are “war not according to the rules” and “strikes against the enemy’s vulnerable points”, the use of diplomacy, political pressure, economic sanctions, military force (and threats to use it).
A truly hybrid is the “world rebellion” - “fighting in the style of insurrection”. This new type of war is raging and expanding on the planet since 1917. And while the end is not visible to her. He revealed and theoretically described it in emigration after the Second World War, Colonel of the Russian General Staff Yevgeny Messner. He and the word:
"Myatoshevoyna - this is a heretical, psychological, base, fierce, apocalyptic war ... when they fight explicitly and secretly, continuously or at a convenient opportunity ... They fight universally, using all the weapons of destruction ... wars ... Fighting by partisans, saboteurs, terrorists, propagandists and saboteurs ... But also with other unusual weapons: aggression, diplomacy, oil-weapons, pornography weapons, weapons-drugs, weapons - washing with m Ozgov ... Terror and partisanism are the main weapons in this war. Terror is war, it is a military strategy ... Terror is becoming boundless. ”
Thus, following the precepts of domestic military classics, the war should be studied, prepared for it seriously and in advance. Moreover, it is to prepare “for any war” (Snesarev). It is necessary to learn to fight creatively, unconventionally, with intelligence and little blood. In order to win the wars of the new type, creativity is no longer necessary.
It is important to understand the war and “know to wage war” (Suvorov). And for this, it must be subjected to constant analysis following the example of our military predecessors. And it is possible to create for this a special institute for the comprehensive study of war or a center for the study of modern wars. The name is not a problem. The main thing is that we should have a specialized scientific institution that could undertake systematic work in this area.
METHODOLOGICAL BASES OF MODERN CONFLICTS AND THE PRINCIPAL POSSIBILITY OF THEIR SETTLEMENT
Andrei Mitrofanov, political scientist, former UN military observer in Yugoslavia
Speaking about post-conflict settlement or even about the very possibility of ending conflicts, it should be borne in mind that in the modern world, starting from the 30-ies of the last century, completely different types of conflicts / wars occur simultaneously.
According to our typology, there are low level wars - such as national ones, aimed at self-determination of a nation, its isolation and seizure / retention of territories.
There are international wars aimed at the redistribution of territories and controlled areas. Such wars can be stopped, and a post-conflict settlement is feasible.
This cannot be said about higher levels - such as ideological or even civilizational wars / conflicts. In essence, today they do not provide for the possibility of reconciliation, either in the short or in the long term. In one way or another, they end up with the complete destruction of the elites of the losers and the partial (sometimes complete) destruction of the population with reformatting of the survivors. At the same time, the timing of high-level wars does not matter - the level of complementarity is important, which determines the probability of survival of carriers of certain psychosocial matrices.
A brief conclusion: neither ideological nor civilizational conflicts / wars can end with a settlement, as they are fought "to the last man." It is precisely in such a war that they are trying to draw Russia today, and not without success.
Modern conflicts acquire various, sometimes the most bizarre forms. Today, everyone has heard such notions as “controlled chaos” (“invention” of the Santa Fe Institute of Complexity), combined wars, hybrid wars, etc.
We assume other forms ahead, such as:
- “Lego-wars”, when, depending on the specific situation and specific region, separate blocks of escalation of the conflict will be drawn up, as in the Lego-constructor, in order to minimize the forces and means;
- "Cloud Wars". Based on new "cloud" technologies from the IT world. The essence of this approach lies in the formation of "clouds" of distributed technologies with the creation of central nodes (data centers in IT) for complex infrastructures. "Clouds" of varying degrees of intensity can simultaneously cover both individual countries and entire regions.
The problem of conflicts / wars is tied to the forecasting horizon - it is simpler, to the strategic forecast of the transition of humanity through the future point of polyfurcation (the Great Anthropological Transition).
The consideration principle is based on the provisions of the second Gödel (1930) incompleteness theorem, which enable successful planning of conflicts and wars only if the higher levels are accurately calculated, determining development in the horizon, say, from 25 years and beyond.
Without an understanding of these levels, the likelihood of the survival of a particular country and even a civilization in a high-level conflict, such as ideological and much less civilizational, will be impossible.
Consider a purely practical example of 2013 – 2014 events and the participation of Russia in them. In late summer - early autumn 2013, we had a real chance to be drawn into the war in the Middle East (the conflict in Syria), which nearly started around August 29.
Undoubtedly, the war in the Middle East should have the character of a civilizational clash, which most of the experts do not understand then or today. In the 2014 year, this was a little more pronounced with the advent of the Islamic State.
Russia's participation in that possible war would be suicide for it, since it is (and still is) not the subject of civilizational conflicts, as a result of which, according to our typology and practice, the fate of a barter pawn, or, more simply, a sacrificial animal in the layouts of more serious levels. Active participation in the clash of ideologies, and even more so civilizational matrices (in this case conditionally fiery Islam and neoliberalism) is unacceptable for our country, which has not shown its ideology for a long time.
The conflict in Ukraine is not yet “civilizational” - it is a first-level national conflict, only with the potential for the real emergence of an independent Ukrainian nation. Such a potential can be both realized and reversed taking into account the force vectors.
Interestingly, from this point of view, participation in the conflict resolution process would be more effective in negotiations not with representatives of a “liberal” Kiev, but with Ukrainian national socialists, who are still a much lesser strategic danger.
Transferring this conflict to the level of ideology means, in particular, the following:
- a high probability of the termination of the existence of Ukraine (under certain conditions and Russia) as an independent state;
- the impossibility of ending the conflict. As we have shown, conflicts from the level of ideology and above stop only with the complete destruction of the carriers of certain psychosocial matrices. That is, if the Donbass ends, then the Crimea, Transnistria, Kuban, etc. will begin. No stopping;
- the ineffectiveness of the participation of peacekeeping contingents of any level and composition (as was the case with the UN mission and then NATO in the former Yugoslavia);
- failure to comply with any agreements, no matter how good they are (as was the case with the Munich agreements) ...
Strange as it may sound, participation, even highly mediated, in the Ukrainian conflict so far saves us from inevitable defeat in a possible civilizational war — for example, in the Middle East.
In general, the increasing complexity in modern conditions requires a wider use of modern science to resolve conflicts and prevent our country's involvement in high-level wars, especially civilizational ones. In this context, it would be long overdue to organize the Russian equivalent of the Santa Fe Institute of Difficulty, where representatives of various interdisciplinary areas could work effectively.
LESSONS OF TERRORIST WAR IN SYRIA FOR RUSSIA
Vasily Pavlov, war correspondent in hot spots of the planet
The type and methods of post-conflict settlement depend on the type of conflict and the objectives of the parties. Therefore, in order to determine ways of settlement, it is first necessary to understand the goals of the conflicting parties. And not even those who hold weapons in their hands, but those who were the source and organizer of the conflict.
Any attempt to end or resolve a conflict can be successful in the event of:
a) if one of the parties has achieved its goal;
b) if one of the parties (or both) understands that he cannot achieve his goal by any means.
If we talk about Ukraine, the purpose of the militia is to strive to preserve their identity as part of the Russian people.
Much more complicated is the question of the purpose of the Ukrainian side. If its goal was to preserve the unity of Ukraine, then this could be achieved without any war.
However, everything becomes clearer if you look at the south - at the war being waged now in Syria. And to understand that what is happening in Syria is not some kind of civil war in itself, but part of a general plan.
In this case, the events in Ukraine fully fit into the scheme of what happened in the Middle East.
Before the outbreak of the terrorist war in Syria, its enemies attacked its neighbors: Iraq, Libya and Egypt. The blow, which was aimed at not even occupying these countries, but first of all destroying the collective security system of the Middle East.
As a result of the devastating civil war with the direct participation of NATO, the formerly friendly Libya has become a member of the Middle Eastern security system as a source of weapons and terrorists now used in Syria.
The main objective of the recent wars in the Middle East was precisely the creation of instability zones near Syria and Iran, which in fact are the true goal.
In my opinion, we have a complete analogy with the events in the Middle East. The conflict in Ukraine was initiated by external forces with the goal of creating a springboard for subsequent terrorist aggression against Russia.
With a high degree of probability, it can be assumed that of the entire possible spectrum of hybrid wars against Russia the same type as against Syria will be used - a full-scale terrorist war.
It is the preparation for it that is characterized by a preliminary, randomizing effect on the neighboring countries.
Thus, for the possibility of resolving the conflict in Ukraine, it is necessary to prevent the possibility of a terrorist war in Russia. In this case, for those who are behind the conflict in Ukraine, it will lose all meaning due to the impossibility of achieving the ultimate goal, and we can talk about a settlement.
If direct aggression against Russia is impossible because of the presence of nuclear weapons, and the threat of civil war does not have prerequisites in the form of confrontation of groups of society, it makes sense as the most likely threat to consider precisely terrorist aggression, to which we have all the prerequisites for which, by analogy with Syria .
This includes a large number of poorly controlled migrants, the acquisition by foreign citizens and companies of land and real estate in Russia, and the rapid growth of Wahhabism in all regions of Russia, and unrest in neighboring countries.
Syrian experience shows that the closest link “population - security forces - police - army” is the most effective in confronting large-scale mass terrorism. At the same time, a properly prepared population interacting with security forces is a key element of the scheme. Of all the cases of large-scale terrorist attacks, they were unsuccessful only where the Syrian National Defense Forces, that is, the militia, were present.
At the same time, it should be clearly understood that the creation by the population of independent militarized organizations in the event of a terrorist aggression is not only useless, but also harmful.
The self-defense forces, organized in private, did not yield any positive effect, often conflicting with the law and interfering with law enforcement agencies in the performance of their duties to protect the population.
Only the Syrian militia, which has a close relationship with the military and police commanders, prepared in close cooperation with government agencies, could really help the state security agencies to counteract the terrorists.
In peacetime, the People’s Guard can assist the police in security arrangements, and in the military, they can provide substantial assistance to the police and the army in neutralizing terrorist groups.
At the same time, the maintenance of the units of the People’s Guard, in contrast to the increase in the army and police, is much cheaper and has practically no effect on the economic situation in the state. Since it is only a kind of mobilization system of territorial defense. It is only necessary, firstly, to teach citizens to interact with the army, the police and among themselves, and secondly, to prepare them for counter-terrorism measures.
Moreover, there is an understanding of the need for territorial defense. This is evidenced by the new military doctrine, and the Law "On Defense", and the re-establishment of voluntary people's squads, and the revival of DOSAAF, which can and should be the basis for training and mobilization training of the People's Guard.
It took the Syrian leadership a year to find, through trial and error, to find the optimal way to counter terrorist aggression. Year, paid by the blood of citizens who are victims of terrorists.
TODAY WE HAVE ANY MORE TIME FOR PREPARATION, BUT IT QUICKLY LEAVES. PROSPECTS OF UN PEACEKEEPING AND POST-CONFLICT SETTLEMENT IN DONBASS
Olga Kulygina, associate professor of REU them. G.V. Plekhanov
Over a fairly long history of UN peacekeeping missions, both failures and successful operations have occurred. In each specific case, the nature of the mission’s implementation was determined by the specifics of the specific conflict, but obviously there are also general criteria that allow predicting the results of planned operations.
Let's try to formulate the most obvious. First: the parties, believing that military resolution methods have been exhausted, should be willing to resolve the conflict through peaceful negotiations. Second: the UN peacekeeping force must have sufficient military force to end the conflict. Third: political efforts must be made by the UN and other international organizations to achieve consensus between the warring parties.
In view of the above, let us consider the prospects for conducting a peacekeeping operation in the Donbass, the desirability of which was announced by the leadership of Ukraine.
The aim of the introduction of peacekeepers, obviously, should be to stop the war in Ukraine. Is Kiev interested in this?
Earlier, the Ukrainian leadership, through the mouth of both Poroshenko and other politicians, categorically rejected the idea of entering a peacekeeping contingent. The main objective reasons for the rejection of the peacekeeping operation were the calculation by a military force to defeat the self-proclaimed republics and the desire to hide from the world community the war crimes of power structures controlled by Kiev. In the first place - regular and brutal shelling of the RSZO and artillery of the cities and towns of Donbass, accompanied by the destruction of the infrastructure and the death of civilians.
Today the situation has changed not in favor of Kiev.
What are the objective factors related to the current initiative of Kiev to introduce UN peacekeepers? There are several of them, and they all lie in the continuation of the conflict in the south-east. Currently, Kiev is interested in stabilizing the existing line of contact, since it allows you to effectively implement a strategy of economic blockade of the region and the creation of unbearable living conditions in the Donbas. The second and also obvious reason for the initiatives of Kiev is associated with the desire to close the borders of the republics with Russia, which will make the blockade of the region complete. Not being able to block the border with the Russian Federation by military methods, Kiev turned to diplomatic.
What should be our position on the initiative with the UN peacekeepers?
At present, within the framework of the Minsk decisions, Russia adheres to agreements on a truce and the “special status” of the LPR and the DPR within Ukraine. Under these agreements, Ukraine is supplied with gas and other necessary resources, and the republics receive humanitarian and other assistance.
However, it should be noted that the guarantor of these agreements is exclusively Petro Poroshenko, whose desire and ability to comply with them remain in question. Currently, Ukraine is not an independent political entity. The United States, which has an enormous influence on Ukraine’s foreign policy, is not interested in resolving the conflict, taking into account Russia's interests. The more Poroshenko shows a tendency to compromise with Russia, the more weakened his political position. The risks of another unconstitutional coup in Kiev have increased. Economic aid to Russia strengthens the regime and reduces its tendency to compromise, since the United States determines the main vector of Ukraine’s foreign policy.
The rapidly deteriorating economic, political, military and social situation in Ukraine carries significant risks of dismantling the Ukrainian statehood, the consequences of which are little predictable. Russia should be ready for such a development of events in Ukraine, which will inevitably entail a review of the entire spectrum of political and economic agreements reached with Kiev.
At the same time, most of the prerequisites necessary for the success of the peacekeeping mission in the Donbas are absent. None of the parties to the conflict is interested in stopping the bloodshed and considers the UN mission as a tactical move to achieve its goals. In addition, the intensity of the conflict deliberately exceeds the capacity of the UN peacekeepers to forcibly contain the conflicting parties. The lack of international recognition of the LPR and the DPR creates problems for their participation in peace negotiations as an equal party to the conflict.
However, all of the above does not deny the need for a peacekeeping mission in the Donbass to eliminate a humanitarian catastrophe in the region. Priority directions are medical and food aid. Support can be provided both in the format of an international peacekeeping and humanitarian operation, and (in case of refusal from it) only by the forces of Russia.
The following measures are seen as top priority:
- Assistance in the formation of full-fledged budgets of the republics primarily due to income from the sale of coal;
- assistance in building a system of non-cash cash payments both within the republics and with Russia;
- removal or minimization of customs restrictions on the importation of goods into Russia;
- removal of customs restrictions on the importation of humanitarian aid from both organizations and citizens of Russia.
INFORMATION INFLUENCE IN HYBRID WAR
Anatoly Nesmiyan, political columnist and blogger with the pseudonym El Murid
One of the important aspects of hybrid warfare (as, indeed, any other) is the information and propaganda component. In modern conditions with the widespread spread of the Internet, information operations acquire a wide range of possibilities.
As an example, one can cite a system of information support for Islamist terrorist groups and organizations.
Radical Islamists have launched recruitment, undercover and mobilization work on social networks. At the same time, they did not create something new - the already worked-out technologies of color revolutions were used, one of the most important elements of which was the creation of the same structures on the Internet. Suffice it to recall the employee Google Google, who is called the creator of the revolution 2011 year in Egypt. He created a protest group in the social network Facebook, which has several tens of thousands of participants, which has become an organizational tool for the protests.
In fact, the Internet has become a new technical means of communication for terrorist groups and cells, but they have achieved the greatest achievements in the field of propaganda.
The goal of propaganda of terrorist fighters is to intimidate potential victims, creating an atmosphere of fear and terror. The Internet helps them spread the scenes of violence, by increasing the order of the audience of those they are meant for.
The Islamic State (IG) has brought this part of the propaganda almost to perfection: media services and studios have been created, which have turned to the production of films of excellent quality. Dark and sinister videos about executions are intended, on the one hand, to have a paralyzing effect on the enemy, on the other - to inspire supporters. The Internet and its services allow these films to be distributed not by hundreds and thousands, but by millions of copies.
It should be noted that to some extent this propaganda achieves the goal: after the execution of the Japanese hostages, Japan decided to refuse to participate in the international coalition to combat IS. The 21 Egyptian-Copta video on the Mediterranean shores caused a mass exodus of Egyptian workers from Libyan oil fields, which seriously complicated the position of a legal government, suffocating from a critical lack of funds.
The not-too-expensive intimidation operation led to a colossal effect and caused economic and financial damage to the Islamist opponent. Previously, this kind of effect was achieved by sabotage operations involving combat groups; now, literally several thousand dollars, the militants have received a return, measured in tens of millions of dollars of damage to their enemy.
The problem is that methods of countering this kind of propaganda are just beginning to be developed. However, their effectiveness is low.
You can go the costly way, as it was done in Ukraine, when the mass consciousness in the truest sense of the word is zombied by Ukrainian propaganda. In this case, any information that does not correspond to existing stereotypes is simply not perceived. Unfortunately, this method of fighting enemy propaganda is fraught with the most severe mental deviations of its own population, which ceases to adequately assess the situation.
The minus of such a method is clearly visible on the same Ukrainian example - when they get to the front, the Ukrainian soldiers begin to understand the complete discrepancy between the images inspired by them and the real situation. The motivation of personnel is sharply lost, and literally after a few weeks of being at the front, such units are massively demoralized, which makes them practically unsuitable for combat operations.
In a sense, this is not too worried about the Kiev leadership, which has the opportunity to carry out permanent mobilization and replenish personnel. However, it is clear that such a massive impact on public consciousness will have dire consequences for the whole country.
Assessing this situation as a whole, we can formulate some conclusions:
First, you need to create your own informational propaganda structures targeted at a specific audience - the population of the country - a potential adversary. The RT channel is already working, which has achieved very good results in this regard. However, it needs to be supplemented with a whole tracking system that will work dottedly and fragmentarily.
Secondly, it is necessary to create scientific organizations that will develop technologies to counter hostile propaganda in Russian society using modern information technologies.
Thirdly, it is necessary to work out measures to stop the activities of key hostile propaganda resources and structures that generate hostile propaganda. For example, the elimination of IG’s media studios and their employees, which can be carried out in the framework of the fight against terrorism, will dramatically reduce the quality and quantity of propaganda materials of a group that is rapidly gaining popularity in a radical environment, to a large extent due to the work of its propaganda structures.
Information