From June 29 to July 1, the BRICS Civil Forum took place in Moscow, with an open discussion platform on the issue of “Money as a weapon”. Topics such as the transformation of the essence and contradictions of modern money, money and power, symmetrical and asymmetric, as well as direct and indirect financial impacts, money and national threats, and others were discussed. A speech by one of the authors at the BRICS Civil Forum formed the basis of this article.
Economic confrontation has a long history. However, in the conditions of globalization of the world, it not only became more active, but also acquired new forms. The history of mankind is not only the development of technology, culture, man, but also the history of wars. Over the years, the budget expenditures of the warring parties have grown exponentially. In recent decades, astronomical sums have gone to war. It is obvious that, in the words of Mayakovsky, if this happens, it means that someone needs it, that is, war gives an economic result.
War is a profitable business
Over the thousand-year history of the development of mankind, wars have radically changed, more and more complex and costly technical means of destroying buildings and destroying people are constantly being created. One thing remains unchanged - the huge human and material losses suffered by the states and peoples inhabiting the Euro-Asian continent. Only Australia and America, including the USA and Canada, due to their geographical location did not have significant material and human losses. They only spent ammunition for the destruction of other countries and peoples, developing their own economy on military orders. For example, in the fighting in Indochina in 1965 – 1973, the US military spent over fourteen thousand tons of ammunition, seventy thousand liters of herbicidal compositions and defoliants, about forty thousand of the squibs to act on the clouds. The result - deformed nature, the destruction of about forty-five million trees, the violation of soil structure, the complete disappearance of several species of birds and fish.
The share of budget expenditures in the national income of the warring states grew steadily and amounted to World War I - 15 – 37 percent, to the Second increased to 43 – 68 percent. In 2013, NATO’s defense spending reached 850 billions of dollars, of which the USA accounted for 550 billions. As for the other NATO countries, they have spent 300 billions of dollars and this is the price of their obedience to the United States.
If the share of US military expenditures from GDP is 3,5 percent, then in France and the UK - only 2,2 percent, and in Germany - only 1,2 percent. Is it any wonder that the leaders of Germany, France and other countries in the wake of the United States do not even respond to the electronic wiretapping of the talks of their leaders.
The world at the IMF gun
The United States has increased its military capabilities to a size that allows them, being in virtual isolation and in the security zone, to keep the whole world at gunpoint. Their potential includes the joint headquarters of the armed forces in the North American, Middle Eastern, European, Pacific, South American, African theaters of war (theater of military operations). In other words, the zone of US economic interests is the entire globe.
The invention of missiles of various classes, including intercontinental with a range of 11 – 12 ammunition delivery thousands of kilometers, led to the understanding by the world community of the futility of building up a nuclear missile potential. The Americans realized that they had ceased to be inaccessible, and began to search for new and active development of the old, relatively bloodless non-lethal means of confrontation. The development and application of informational, psychological, cybernetic, demographic, climate, gas and other wars began, the search for various forms and methods of financial and economic confrontation intensified.
Thus, the transition to economic wars turned out to be an objectively conditioned and inevitable process, while preserving the traditional types of power confrontation. It should be recognized that the so-called financial and economic wars have a long history. So, Athens in the V century BC banned trade relations with the Greeks with the territories under Sparta, which ultimately led to the fall of Athens. Economic wars waged Carthage in the Mediterranean region, the Western Roman Empire rivaled Venice, France Napoleon Bonaparte fought against England using a naval blockade. In the first half of the twentieth century, Germany flooded the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition with a large number of counterfeit dollars, pounds and marks.
A well-known military specialist, Major General Vladimir Slipchenko, believes that in the modern world, finance has become the main strategic strike force. Italian scientists laid the foundation for a new direction of modern science - geoeconomics, in Russia this direction is actively developed by the famous scientist Ernest Kochetov.
It is in this area that there is an opportunity to perceptibly undermine state sovereignty. The main caliber instrument in the modern financial war is the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The provision of credit funds by the fund is connected with the fulfillment of certain conditions by the borrowing countries. Allocated loans have, as a rule, a tight focus. This contributes to the curtailment of investments, the privatization of key assets by foreign “money bags”, economic stagnation, rising unemployment, lower living standards. The most characteristic episode is the situation with the repayment of credit debts by Greece in 2015.
The main goal of all wars of all times was and remains the struggle for resources. Examples of modern economic wars abound. These include trade embargoes against Cuba, Serbia, Belarus, Iran and other less developed countries. The arrests of ships by Americans, including Russian, transporting Iranian oil. The economic blockade of Serbia.
Moreover, such wars in one form or another are combined with armed intervention and the use of lethal and other weapons. There are clean methods of economic blockade, such as sanctions against Russia. An example of a combination of forms of influence is the forceful seizure of Panama, when military force played the role of a tool to satisfy economic interest associated with the Panama Canal.
The war in Yugoslavia showed that new priorities for striking were determined - environmentally hazardous production and raw materials enterprises. The economic base and infrastructure have become the objects of prime impact. According to various estimates, the losses of Yugoslavia exceeded 100 billion dollars. One day of war in this country cost the US budget 70 – 100 million dollars, and the total cost of the operation “Allied force” is estimated at fifteen billion dollars, that is, 6,5 times less.
Meanwhile, if dollars were spent on the war, then the war strengthened the dollar. It is known that the dollar became the world currency after the destruction of the European industrial potential in World War II.
Disposal of weapons and countries
Traditional wars allow to solve other problems, for example concerning the creation of sophisticated weapons systems. In Russia, testing and testing of new types and weapons systems, including atomic ones, are carried out at specially created test sites located in our own territories or rented from the countries of the former USSR. Testing and testing in real conditions of new weapons were made by the United States on the Pacific Islands, during armed conflicts in Vietnam, Korea, Yugoslavia, Iraq and other regions.
Another serious technological, industrial and military-economic problem is the disposal of weapons with expired guarantee resources. To solve it, the United States used practically outdated samples to conduct the conflicts unleashed in Ukraine, in Yugoslavia ... The United States did not have the goal to seize the territory of Yugoslavia, but inflicted powerful fire strikes.
Utilization of weapons, military and special equipment is not only technical and technological, but also an environmental, as well as an economic problem. Especially laborious is the disposal of nuclear submarines (APL). In 1993, the first Federal program for the industrial utilization of weapons and military equipment was developed in Russia. This is an extremely high-cost set of events. Thus, the total costs of implementing the 1999 – 2005 program amounted to more than 25 billion rubles, as well as the dismantling of nuclear submarines - more than seven billion rubles (in 1999 prices).
Disposal of weapons on foreign territories in the course of hostilities is being used more and more often, although this leads to very serious negative consequences. Thus, the Georgian army was armed with American artillery weapons and ammunition, which contain depleted uranium, and they fired at civilians.
A peculiar way of doing economic expansion is the fact that the Americans, through groups of advisers trained at US universities and their consultants invited to Russia in the 90-s, implanted in Russia that market variant that was supposed to finish post-Gorbachev Russia, weakened in 1985 – 1989's.
The privatization of enterprises and organizations of the military-industrial complex, carried out in the 90-s, led to a decrease in their total number and an increase in the share of enterprises in the form of joint-stock companies. The re-profiling of production at most of the privatized points of the former defense industrial complex, the reduction of production capacity, and the loss of technology have led to the fact that the placement of mobilization tasks in the required volume and nomenclature has practically become impossible.
Objects of federal property located in prestigious districts of Moscow and St. Petersburg were often sold at prices not exceeding the amount of rent paid for the transfer of the said objects for a period of one to two years. The degradation of defense research institutes and design bureaus led to a decline in the number of applications filed for inventions 10 – 20 times, which could not but affect Russia's military potential.
Foreign manufacturers of weapons, using legal gaps in the regulation of state rights to the results of intellectual activity, secured exclusive rights to the inventions of Russian authors created at the expense of budget funds. The leakage abroad of qualified personnel and the results of intellectual activity has caused irreparable damage to the economy and national security of Russia.
You need an Academy
These data indicate the significant strategic importance of the problem of economic confrontation or, in other words, financial and economic wars. However, from the point of view of scientific, personnel and legal support of its decision is not. There is not only a complex methodology for solving problems, but they are not even discussed and, accordingly, are not put in a legal aspect. As Professor Valentin Katasonov notes, in principle, our elected representatives have a very vague idea of what an economic war is.
Many managers lack competence and professionalism. We have fallen behind in studying all aspects of the problem of economic wars, which is fraught with dangerous consequences. Until now, the focus has been and continues to be on the connection between war and the economy in terms of the resource support of the military resistance of states. But this is not enough.
In world science there is a theory of wars, which considers the traditional confrontations. It, in turn, is divided into subspecies: classical, class, pluralistic, positivistic ... Military theory summarizes ideas, principles, scientific knowledge about the phenomena of war and military affairs. In the area under consideration, we also need to develop a system of concepts and categories, classify economic confrontations, develop methodologies for evaluating the target effect and the costs of their operation to accomplish tasks for their intended purpose.
Economic competition, confrontation and war as independent categories should be singled out.
Economic competition is the simplest type of relationship between participants in a competitive (market) economy, confrontation is a larger-scale phenomenon, in some cases turning into an economic war. Each type of confrontation involves specific forms, means, results. Meanwhile, so far there is no generally accepted conceptual apparatus, a classification of economic confrontation has not been developed, scientifically based methods for conducting the economic struggle have not been defined.
In a number of Russian universities, economic security specialists have been trained, the Academy of Economic Security of the Ministry of the Interior has been operating for several years. There is also a scientific specialty 08.00.05 "Economics and management of the national economy", in which there is a field of study "Economic security". But the scope of this specialty is defined in its name - the national economy, whereas economic wars should not be considered within their territory. And for the economic war, experts do not prepare, which can not but be disturbed. As a result, Russian specialists are late with the reaction to the negative actions of the opponent.
It is time to raise the question of creating a system for predicting the direction and nature of possible economic wars, managing the confrontation, as well as appropriate training of personnel and relevant technical systems for a military-economic confrontation with a likely opponent or coalition.
There are universities in Russia that can organize and start training such professionals. Among them are primarily MGIMO, REA them. Plekhanov, Financial and Economic University in St. Petersburg, etc.
Scientific research in the field of the theory of military-economic and other alternative forms of confrontation is not being conducted either. Publications of articles, monographs cover up the scientific gap, but do not solve the problem of scientific and staffing of economic wars. The leadership of the Academy of Military Sciences is extremely reluctant to recognize other types of wars than traditional ones. We need the Academy of Military and Economic Sciences. It is not explainable that we do not have a single scientific research institute on military economics, national security economics, although the expenditure part of the budget for its provision is at least 30 percent of budget expenditures as a whole. And nobody studies them.
For a systemic solution of the problem of ensuring financial and economic confrontation, it is advisable to adopt for many years the methodology of program-target planning, which has been used in the military sphere for more than 45 years (from 1969 year). It should be adapted to economic and information wars, as well as to develop appropriate applied branch methodologies and, which is very important, to prepare specialists for conducting economic wars. It is advisable to submit this question for consideration and decision of the Security Council of the Russian Federation.
In Russia, unfortunately, there is still no coordination and management body that could operatively solve the multidimensional tasks of not only armed confrontation, but also of economic, demographic, informational and other types of wars. There is good experience in Russia in the area of military-technical policy management by the forces of the Military Industrial Commission. However, I would like to note the change in its functional responsibilities over time. Thus, in the position of 1999, the commission’s function was formulated as “ensuring interaction and coordination of activities of federal executive bodies in order to develop proposals for implementing state policy on military-industrial issues and ensuring defense and state security”. At the same time, among the first tasks is “the preparation of proposals on the implementation of a unified state policy in the field of defense and state security,” followed by the development of the defense and military-technical cooperation.
But in the Regulations on the MIC of 2014, the accents are shifted, narrowed. It says that the commission is entrusted with the task of implementing the state policy in the sphere of the military-industrial complex, military-technical support of the country's defense, state security and law enforcement. The priority now is the military-technical policy and the defense industry, which significantly reduces the problems of military construction in general.
Training of scientific personnel in the country is becoming increasingly flawed. So, 80 percent of Russian graduate students study not in research institutes, but in universities, that is, university science develops mainly. This means that scientific personnel are focused mainly on teaching, and this is far from being the same as R & D at research institutes. Grants also receive mainly universities. Academic titles of professor and associate professor are now assigned only to university staff. The Regulation of the Ministry of Education and Science, regulating the procedure for assigning academic titles, formulated a ridiculous requirement: scientific organizations to submit documents for the assignment of academic titles should be engaged in the implementation of a higher education program that is not within the competence of the scientific research institute.
This can be largely explained by the state of the current personnel policy: in Russia, the Minister of Education and Science, his deputy, who oversees the system of training and certification of scientific personnel, as well as the chairman and almost half of the Higher Attestation Commission are high school employees. In the Public Council under the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia, more than half of the members are employees of educational institutions, while some representatives of the right-wing wing cannot be allowed close to education or science. Applied science in the Public Council is practically not represented.
It is necessary to develop a categorical apparatus, the theory and methodology of the science of confrontation on the fronts of financial, economic and other types of non-traditional wars. It is necessary to form a training system for conducting economic and other types of non-traditional confrontation.
A federal body should be created to coordinate activities in the field of economic confrontation. And this cannot be trusted by radical liberals in the financial and economic bloc, research institutes and universities.
It is time for the citizens of Russia to look at what is happening with open eyes. And to understand that the war against their country has long been fought. Moreover, using highly efficient weapons such as banks, loans, etc. Ten years ago, at the Vienna Forum, Felix Rohatin, an American banking specialist, former head of Lazard Freres, said: “The deadly potential incorporated in the combination of new financial instruments and high-tech trading methods , can contribute to the onset of a destructive chain reaction. Today, global financial markets are more dangerous for stability than atomic weapons. ”