In the 21st century, the role of the army in the period of preparation for war by the aggressor state against the victim state becomes secondary, giving way to forces destroying the victim of aggression from within. These forces are a part of the society itself, its political and economic elite, whose actions according to a predetermined plan cover all aspects of the life of society and the state - from the military and economic to the state, political, social, humanitarian.
SOFT FORCE CONCEPT
An American political scientist, a professor at the John F. Kennedy Harvard Institute of Public Administration, Joseph Nye Jr., who develops a number of areas within neoliberalism, including the theory of complex interdependence, proposed to the US administration the concept of soft power. It includes a rich set of tools and technologies of confrontation between states without the direct participation of the armed forces.
Nye first used the term “soft power” in 1990, in his book “The Changing Nature of American Power” (Changing Nature of American Power). Subsequently, he developed this concept in the work “Flexible Power. How to succeed in world politics ”(Soft Power. The Means to Success in World Politics), which was translated into Russian.
In the interpretation of Naya, soft power is the ability to obtain the desired result in relations with other states due to the attractiveness of their own culture, values and foreign policy, and not coercion or financial resources.
Another version of this term in Russian translation is defined as the ability to influence another state to achieve its own goal through cooperation in certain areas, aimed at persuasion and the formation of a positive perception.
Recently, in addition to the term “soft power”, the term “smart power” (smart power) is actively used, which is defined as the ability to combine hard (force or economic coercion) and soft power to form a winning strategy.
The tools of soft power in the West include: controlled chaos, in which the main technology is the color revolution; information wars; controlled confrontation; cultural hegemony; financial and economic sanctions, etc., as well as tools and technologies developed in 1973 by an American public figure, Harvard University professor Jean Sharp. He is the founder of the Albert Einstein Institute, funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, the Ford Foundation, the International Republican Institute (Director - Senator John McCain) and has close links with the US Strategic Research Center "Research and Development" (RAND). Gene Sharp is known worldwide for his books on non-violent methods of dealing with an authoritarian regime. In one of them “From dictatorship to democracy. The conceptual basis of the liberation ”, which was translated into Russian, he described in detail the technology of the bloodless change of power. In an appendix to the book, Sharpe lists the 198 methods of non-violent action, which, in essence, are methods of implementing a color revolution, starting with street protests, refusing to pay taxes, to boycott the elections and the general strike. Sharpe believes that, firstly, the strength of the state is based on the cooperation of the authorities with the population and its obedience; secondly, if people stop interacting with the regime, then the latter loses the pillars on which it rests.
In general, the practical scheme of applying the technology of color revolution can be represented as follows:
- The opposition, with the support of the American media and NGOs, is starting a massive information impact on the country's population in order to weaken the existing regime;
- the decisive phase of the operation is planned for the beginning of the electoral cycle, when the political system is in a vulnerable position (presidential or parliamentary elections); the whole mechanism is put into effect after the announcement of the election results, which do not meet the demands of the opposition leader;
- Population groups (on average, from 50 to 100, thousand people, depending on the situation), called by the people in the Western media, take to the streets and start an indefinite rally, demanding the usurper to resign; organized masses block the main transport and communication arteries; the main condition is not to enter into armed struggle with law enforcement agencies, since violent conflict (in which the advantage of the ruling regime) may lead to a violent suppression of the uprising; the whole city is gradually paralyzed, fuel supplies are suspended, a food crisis is brewing;
- The US administration (through the Department of State and other agencies) announces deliberate falsification of elections, supports the "fighters for democracy" and calls on the head of state to resign;
- Anglo-American, other Western TV channels, news agencies, Internet resources, radio and newspapers continue to put pressure on the authorities (the president, the prime minister, the leader of the ruling regime, who in most cases decides to resign, and the parliament, in turn, sets the election date or is limited to “correct” recount);
- The United States announces the "victory of democracy" and provides informational and, if necessary, strong support for the new regime.
REGULARITIES OF THE REVOLUTIONARY PROCESS
This technology, originally tested in Serbia, has been successfully applied in Georgia and Ukraine. Each color revolution that has taken place in these states has general patterns that reveal external influence. Associate Professor of the Department of Humanities of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation, candidate historical Sergey Bespalov in his work "Two projects for the post-Soviet space: forced democratization or stabilization of existing regimes?" names eight basic patterns:
- the existence of a clear plan of action by opposition forces, initially providing for the possibility of going beyond the constitutional framework. In accordance with this plan, the opposition proceeds to mass protest actions the day before, during and immediately after the parliamentary or presidential elections. The opposition refuses to acknowledge the results of the upcoming elections, declaring the inevitable large-scale falsification of the voting results. The basis for such a statement was really serious violations of the democratic procedure of the election process. However, they fit into the framework of previous election campaigns of previous years, which opposition politicians did not consider it possible to use as a basis for decisive actions, realizing that without large-scale support from abroad, such actions will not only be doomed to failure, but also discredit their organizers politicians who went beyond the law;
- international recognition of the new, revolutionary power and, accordingly, delegitimization of the former power;
- foreign assistance in the organizational, financial and ideological preparation of the revolution using soft power mechanisms through non-governmental, non-profit organizations, public funds, volunteer organizations, initiative groups of citizens, and other public structures;
- the presence of opposition leaders from among the political elite - retired or current politicians of the first rank. According to Sergey Bespalov and other political analysts, it was largely due to this circumstance that Georgia and Ukraine managed to ensure a split among the leaders of power structures, up to the open transition of some of them to the side of the opposition. Michael McFaul, a well-known American political scientist and diplomat, wrote about this in more detail in his work “Transitions from postcommunism”;
- support of revolutionary leaders by a significant part of the national business, dissatisfied with the nature of the economic policy pursued by the former government, primarily the results of privatization of the most attractive objects of the national economy. The key sponsors of the opposition in Georgia and Ukraine were entrepreneurs, who sought not so much to fundamentally change the nature of the interaction between government and business, as to obtain economic benefits and create more comfortable conditions for doing business. In this regard, one can speak of opposition leaders also as representatives of financial-bureaucratic clans deprived of their previous power;
- pronounced populism of ideology that has a nationalistic tint;
- use for delegitimizing the election results of the opinions and conclusions of foreign observers, primarily representatives of the OSCE. This situation becomes possible primarily because of the existing practice in the OSCE of financing the activities of observers of this organization and determining the personal composition of the mission of observers at the elections not of the OSCE itself, but of the participating States willing to finance their work during the elections. In addition, within the framework of the same OSCE, no clear criteria have yet been worked out, on the basis of which an impartial judgment could be made regarding the legitimacy and democratic nature of certain elections;
- To top it off, Western leaders warn the authorities of the country where mass protests are organized about the inadmissibility of using force against the opposition, at the same time do not condemn the actions of the opposition itself, which are unconstitutional - blocking government facilities, obstructing the legitimate activities of state bodies and representatives, etc .d
LEGAL BASE OF HIDDEN INFLUENCE
Beginning with the 2010 year, a legal foundation is being formed in the United States for the application of soft power tools and technology in foreign policy. The founding documents include the directive of the US President of 22 September 2010 on global development issues. The directive indicates the main activities of the federal authorities in the use of non-governmental organizations in the field of economic, humanitarian, financial and other assistance to foreign countries in the interests of maintaining global leadership, improving the international image of Washington and increasing the attractiveness of the American lifestyle.
The document specified the directions and main forms of involvement of soft power elements by state and private structures of the USA. In particular, to effectively promote the interests of the United States, it was prescribed to develop a “Four-Year Review of Diplomacy and Development” (for the period 2011 – 2014), to form an interdepartmental committee on global development under the US National Security Council, to create a national council on global development from representatives of federal and non-state actors, on a regular basis (every four years) to refine the national strategy for global development.
In December 2010, for the first time, the US State Department and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) prepared and presented to the President and Congress the concept paper “Four Year Review of Diplomacy and Development - 2010” (Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review 2010 - QDDR-2010). It was fully dedicated to the problem of Washington using soft power as one of the key components of the implementation of US foreign policy.
According to the document, the main efforts of Washington were focused on four main areas:
- the formation of a new international architecture of the United States, the intensification of public diplomacy with respect to non-governmental and public organizations, informal associations, commercial structures and national diasporas, taking into account their growing role in shaping the foreign and domestic policies of the countries of the world;
- adjustment of the practice of providing direct gratuitous assistance to foreign countries in the direction of its greater linkage with issues of trade, economic and credit and investment policy;
- expanding the scope of the US Agency for International Development and increasing its role as one of the main channels for spreading American influence in the world, establishing a sustainable dialogue with problem countries through the provision of diverse economic, social and humanitarian assistance;
- improving the quality of interaction between the State Department and the Pentagon abroad, primarily in the context of post-conflict and post-crisis rehabilitation, in the interests of ensuring the dominant American influence on regional processes.
The review paid special attention to the need to introduce new forms and methods of work in diplomatic practice, primarily the expansion of so-called non-governmental activities outside the official framework of embassies and consulates. Among specific measures, it was proposed to assign to USAID questions of a humanitarian and technical response to a non-political crisis (natural disaster, man-made disaster, pandemics, etc.), and for the State Department - the tasks of a comprehensive response to political crises that threaten the interests of the United States.
In many cases, soft power is not enough, and then militants and mercenaries go into action. Reuters Photos
In February, 2014 was appointed Richard Stengel, former chief editor of Time magazine, former chief executive officer of the US National Constitution Center, to the position of deputy secretary of state for public diplomacy and public relations. This appointment, in the opinion of Mikhail Shabalov, head of the geopolitical information department of the Analytical Center for Strategic Studies Sokol, testifies to the intention to continue to impose on the world community, primarily through the media, universal values (as well as Western values) forces to promote American interests in other countries through non-state and public structures at the expense of the budget funds allocated by the US State Department and other departments.
In April of 2014, the preparation of the next Four-Year Review of Diplomacy and Development - 2015 was started. 22 April 2014 Secretary of State John Kerry drew the attention of developers to the need to further enhance the strategic and innovative approach to the proposed tools and technologies of soft power, the search for new methods and means to achieve the desired result.
The US Congress 4 December 2014 almost unanimously adopted Resolution No. 758, in which Russia is characterized as the aggressor and lists a number of measures for the political, economic and military weakening of the Russian Federation. A number of observers, including American ones, note that the document adopted by Congress actually introduces the norms of the Cold War in relations between Russia and the Western world and can even be considered as an interim step from the Cold War to the beginning of the armed struggle. So, according to Canadian experts, the Senate and the House of Representatives in Washington are discussing draft laws that ensure the legitimacy of waging a US war against Russia.
President Barack Obama 18 December 2014 of the year signed an act “On supporting freedom in Ukraine”, which allows him to take additional restrictive measures against Russia. This document provides the US administration with new powers that can be used depending on the current situation. The act also points to the need for the United States to cooperate with allies and partners in Europe and the world and to take joint action to respond to developments in Ukraine.
CHALLENGES FOR AMERICAN DIPLOMACY IN 2015 – 2018 YEARS
QDDR-2015 was released in the first quarter of 2015. It contains a preface, three chapters: “Strategic priorities and recommendations”, “Creating active organizations to solve problems in the future”, “Investing in clever and experienced personnel” and the application “Review and update QDDR-2010”.
In an introductory article, Secretary of State John Kerry wrote: "Everywhere that we have a presence, we are leading." (“Wherever we are present, we are in the lead.”) The objects of the spread of American democracy, the American dream, American values in the foreign policy activities of the State Department and the USAID have become almost all countries of the world. Russia occupies a special place in this list. In the review it is mentioned five times, and in three cases, on a par with the IG, in a strongly negative context.
The review outlines a huge area of transnational problems that require an innovative approach to cooperation with other governments and non-governmental organizations. This concerns the resolution of a number of problems in the Asia-Pacific region, Europe and the Middle East. The goal of creating a broad coalition in the report called the victory over the IG in the Middle East and the confrontation of "Russian aggression against Ukraine." And the ultimate goal of American diplomacy is through the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) "to put the United States in the center of a free trade zone covering two-thirds of the global economy" .
Partnership with NATO members and with other treaty organizations, including those created by the United States through strengthening ties with government agencies, public organizations, business communities of different countries and even with individuals, is mentioned as a tool to achieve this goal.
QDDR-2015 focuses on improving the efficiency, professionalism and enhancing the innovative spirit of American diplomacy, which should guarantee the implementation of the “National Security Strategy - 2015”. The new review is based on QDDR-2010. It contains four cross-cutting (enterprise) topics.
The first theme is the development of partnerships with other countries and the involvement of their people in cooperation with the United States across national borders. US diplomats and development professionals should focus on building partnerships with civil society, community organizations and movements, their leaders, religious leaders, entrepreneurs, and all who share American values.
The second topic concerns the improvement of governance in the development of pluralism in various countries, the transparency of power and democracy, and the expansion of the struggle for human rights. The United States will develop partnerships with nations and their representatives who are involved in the hard work of building strong, democratic governance in compliance with international norms and standards. From the review it follows that such construction implies in different countries the struggle of civil society against corruption, bureaucratic arbitrariness and other negative phenomena in the system of government.
The third topic focuses on a balanced combination of advancing American interests and security. Recognizing that the United States cannot cope with all threats, the State Department and USAID intend to constantly consult with Congress, partners, interdepartmental organizations, and other interested parties in order to optimize their work and increase their flexibility in dangerous conditions.
Finally, the fourth topic is advanced technologies, in particular, knowledge management technology. To expand information capabilities, the State Department is planning to create a multi-level hub (center) for analyzing, studying, developing strategies and managing data.
The review highlighted four global political priorities in the work of the State Department and USAID: preventing and mitigating the effects of conflicts and manifestations of extremism; promoting an open, resilient and democratic society; promoting inclusive economic growth; mitigation and adaptation to climate change.
QDDR-2015 quite frankly and in detail reveals the contents of these priorities. Thus, promoting the creation of an open, resilient and democratic society means continuing to invest in democracy, human rights and governance initiatives. “We will build on successful initiatives, such as open government and ensuring transparency in the extractive industries,” the document says.
The State Department and USAID intend to expand their activities to implement anti-corruption initiatives. To this end, in cooperation with the Department of Justice and Internal Security departments of the State Department, establish partnerships with other countries to improve their ability to eliminate targeted corruption, bribery and fight those who profit from corrupt transactions. Within this framework, it is planned to strengthen the support of civil society and the protection of the open Internet.
One of the objectives of promoting the idea of inclusive economic growth is the increase in the size of the middle class throughout the world. According to the authors of the review, this increases the accountability of the government, including through the international system of rules (presumably established by the USA), which successfully competes with alternative, less open models.
EVERYWHERE, HOW YOURSELF HOME
These initiatives and reforms in these four areas are linked in the document to the empowerment of the State Department and USAID to implement the “National Security Strategy - 2015” in the Western Hemisphere and to defend America’s interests both at home and abroad.
The method of implementing these ideas is at the first stage in the ideological processing of the most active part of the national elite of the country in order to ensure its pro-Western orientation. Then the country is offered financial assistance to solve economic and social problems. In this case, the role of donors is usually performed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which are controlled by the United States. Assistance is provided in the form of tied loans.
In the arsenal of Western countries, notes the head of the geopolitical information department of the analytical center for strategic research "Falcon" Mikhail Shabalov, actively used tools and technologies to discredit the national unity of countries and promote ethnic separatism.
Three methods are actively used;
- information processing of the population of the national state and first of all its national elite in order to discredit the traditional system of values and national culture. Special attention is paid to the part of the national elite that is able to actively influence the adoption of the most important decisions, as well as the dissemination within the country of the ideas and principles of neo-globalism;
- economic and financial expansion, the introduction of sanctions instruments aimed at the destruction of the national economy, the disruption of production and the domestic market, the establishment of the country's dependence on foreign investment and loans;
- Encouragement of manifestations of national separatism, which is immediately declared the struggle of the people for their independence and democratic human rights, allegedly violated by the dictatorship of the national state.
Similar methods were actively used during the Ukrainian crisis of the end of 2013 - the beginning of 2014 of the year. According to Mikhail Shabanov, the United States used Euromaidan and the retaliatory actions of Russia and the pro-Russian forces in Ukraine to achieve the following goals:
- the creation of a conflict zone on the borders of the Russian Federation with the participation of the Russian and Ukrainian population of the two countries, which should guarantee maximum involvement of the Kremlin in this conflict and a decrease in its activity in other areas of international politics, including in the Middle East;
- lowering the level of independence of decision-making in politics and economics by European countries;
- to discredit Russia in the international arena;
- growing tension in relations between Russia and Europe, in order to bind the latter even more closely to the format of “Atlantic solidarity”;
- stopping the process of rapprochement between Russia and China;
- disruption of the Eurasian integration process in the post-Soviet space;
- activization of the “Ukrainian factor” in the external and internal political life of Russia with a view to its destabilization with a possible parallel activation of the “Caucasian factor” and the “Islamic factor”;
- causing unacceptable economic damage to Russia, diverting a significant part of its resources from solving problems of socio-economic modernization and development, and strengthening the country's defense capability.
From the very beginning of the development of the acute phase of the Ukrainian crisis, the plan of Western planners was to destabilize the situation in Russia. To this end, the West, under the influence of the United States, by imposing sanctions seeks to economically weaken Russia, which should lead to a deterioration of the economic situation of the Russian people and an increase in discontent with Vladimir Putin’s policies within the country. Thus, as Washington hopes, favorable conditions will be created for the further integrated use of soft power technology.