Conflicts in the modern world. Six major conflicts of the modern world

Novosibirsk State Agrarian University

Economic Institute

Department of History, Political Science and Cultural Studies

ABSTRACT

MILITARY CONFLICTS IN THE MODERN WORLD

Performed:

Student of group 423

Smolkina E.I.

Checked:

Bakhmatskaya G.V.

Novosibirsk 2010

Introduction……………………………………………………………..3

1. Causes of wars and their classification…………...4

2. Military conflicts……………………………………………………………...7

Conclusion……………………………………………………….12

List of references………………………………...13

Introduction

War is a conflict between political entities (states, tribes, political groups), occurring in the form of hostilities between their armed forces. According to Clausewitz, “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” The main means of achieving the goals of war is organized armed struggle as the main and decisive means, as well as economic, diplomatic, ideological, informational and other means of struggle. In this sense, war is organized armed violence aimed at achieving political goals. Total war is armed violence taken to extreme limits. The main weapon in war is the army.

Military writers generally define war as an armed conflict in which the rival groups are sufficiently equal in strength to make the outcome of the battle uncertain. Armed conflicts between militarily strong countries and tribes at a primitive level of development are called pacifications, military expeditions or the development of new territories; with small states - interventions or reprisals; with internal groups - uprisings and rebellions. Such incidents, if the resistance is sufficiently strong or long-lasting, may reach a sufficient scale to be classified as "war."

Purpose of the work: to define the term war, find out the reasons for its occurrence and determine the classification; characterize the military conflict using the example of South Ossetia.

1. Causes of wars and their classification

The main reason for the outbreak of wars is the desire of political forces to use armed struggle to achieve various foreign and domestic political goals.

With the emergence of mass armies in the 19th century, xenophobia (hatred, intolerance towards someone or something alien, unfamiliar, unusual, the perception of someone else as incomprehensible, incomprehensible, and therefore dangerous and hostile), became an important tool for mobilizing the population for war. worldview. On its basis, national, religious or social enmity is easily incited, and therefore, since the 2nd half of the 19th century, xenophobia has been the main tool for inciting wars, channeling aggression, and certain manipulations of the masses within the state.

On the other hand, European societies that survived the devastating wars of the 20th century began to strive to live in peace. Very often, members of such societies live in fear of any shocks. An example of this is the ideologeme “If only there was no war,” which prevailed in Soviet society after the end of the most destructive war of the 20th century - World War II.

For propaganda purposes, wars are traditionally divided into just and unjust.

Just wars include liberation wars - for example, individual or collective self-defense against aggression in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter or a national liberation war against colonialists in the exercise of the right to self-determination. IN modern world Wars waged by separatist movements (Chechnya, Ulster, Kashmir) are considered formally fair, but disapproved.

Unjust - aggressive or unlawful (aggression, colonial wars). In international law, aggressive war is classified as an international crime. In the 1990s, such a concept as a humanitarian war appeared, which is formally aggression in the name of higher goals: preventing ethnic cleansing or humanitarian assistance to civilians.

According to their scale, wars are divided into global and local (conflicts).

According to military doctrine Russian Federation from 2000, a local war is the smallest scale modern war.

A local war, as a rule, is part of a regional ethnic, political, territorial or other conflict. Within the framework of one regional conflict, a whole series of local wars can be concluded (in particular, during the Arab-Israeli conflict in 2009, several local wars have already occurred).

The main stages or phases of the conflict can be characterized as follows:

· Initial state of affairs; interests of the parties involved in the conflict; the degree of their mutual understanding.

· The initiating party - the reasons and nature of its actions.

· Response measures; degree of readiness for the negotiation process; the possibility of normal development and resolution of the conflict - changing the initial state of affairs.

· Lack of mutual understanding, i.e. understanding the interests of the opposing party.

· Mobilization of resources in defending one’s interests.

· Use of force or threat of force (demonstration of force) in defending one’s interests.

Professor Krasnov identifies six stages of conflict. From his point of view, the first stage of a political conflict is characterized by the formed attitude of the parties regarding a specific contradiction or group of contradictions. The second phase of the conflict is the determination of the strategy by the warring parties and the forms of their struggle to resolve existing contradictions, taking into account the potential and possibilities of using various, including violent, means, the domestic and international situation. The third stage is associated with the involvement of other participants in the struggle through blocs, alliances, and treaties.

The fourth stage is the intensification of the struggle, up to a crisis, which gradually embraces all participants on both sides and develops into a national crisis. The fifth stage of the conflict is the transition of one of the parties to the practical use of force, initially for demonstrative purposes or on a limited scale. The sixth stage is an armed conflict that begins with a limited conflict (limitations in goals, territories covered, scale and level of military operations, military means used) and is capable, under certain circumstances, of developing to higher levels of armed struggle (war as a continuation of politics) of all participants.

The author of this approach considers armed conflict as one of the forms of political conflict. The limitations of this approach are manifested in abstraction from two important aspects: from pre-conflict conditions and from the post-conflict stage of development of political relations.

2.Military conflicts

The concept of “military conflict”, the defining feature of which is only the use of military force to achieve political goals, serves as an integrator for the other two - armed conflict and war. Military conflict is any clash, confrontation, form of resolving contradictions between states, peoples, and social groups using military force. Depending on the goals of the parties and large-scale indicators, such as spatial scope, the forces and means involved, the intensity of the armed struggle, military conflicts can be divided into limited (armed conflicts, local and regional wars) and unlimited (world war). In relation to military conflicts, sometimes, most often in foreign literature, such terms as conflicts of a small scale (low intensity), medium scale (medium intensity), large scale (high intensity) are used.

According to some researchers, a military conflict is a form of interstate conflict characterized by a clash of interests of the warring parties, which use military means with varying degrees of limitation to achieve their goals. An armed conflict is a conflict between medium and large social groups in which the parties use weapons (armed groups), excluding armed forces. Armed conflicts are open clashes involving the use of weapons between two or more centrally-led parties that continue uninterruptedly over a period of time in a dispute over the control of territory and its administration.

Other authors call a military conflict the contradictions between the subjects of military-strategic relations, emphasizing the degree of aggravation of these contradictions and the form of their resolution (using armed forces on a limited scale). Military experts understand an armed conflict as any conflict involving the use of weapons. In contrast, in a military conflict, the presence of political motives when using weapons is necessary. In other words, the essence of a military conflict is the continuation of a policy using military violence.

Among military specialists, there is a concept of a limited military conflict, a conflict associated with a change in the status of a particular territory, affecting the interests of the state and with the use of means of armed struggle. In such a conflict, the number of warring parties ranges from 7 to 30 thousand people, up to 150 tanks, up to 300 armored vehicles, 10-15 light aircraft, up to 20 helicopters.

The most striking example of a military conflict in recent years is the military confrontation in August 2008 between Georgia, on the one hand, and Russia, along with the unrecognized republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, on the other.

Georgian and South Ossetian troops have been engaged in skirmishes and fire attacks of varying intensity since late July 2008. On the evening of August 7, the parties agreed on a ceasefire, which, however, was not actually done.

On the night of August 7-8, 2008 (at 0:06) Georgian troops began a massive artillery shelling of the capital of South Ossetia, the city of Tskhinvali and surrounding areas. A few hours later, the city was stormed by Georgian armored vehicles and infantry. The official reason for the attack on Tskhinvali, according to the Georgian side, was a violation of the ceasefire by South Ossetia, which, in turn, claims that Georgia was the first to open fire.

On August 8, 2008 (at 14:59), Russia officially joined the conflict on the side of South Ossetia as part of an operation to force the Georgian side to peace, on August 9, 2008 - Abkhazia as part of an agreement on military assistance between members of the Commonwealth of Unrecognized States.

The origins of the modern Georgian-Ossetian conflict lie in the events of the late 1980s, when the intensification of the Georgian national movement for independence from the union center (while simultaneously denying the small peoples of Georgia the right to autonomy) and the radical actions of its leaders against the backdrop of the weakness of the central leadership of the USSR led to sharp deterioration of relations between Georgians and ethnic minorities (primarily Abkhazians and Ossetians, who had their own autonomous entities).

The main causes of discontent in the conflict zone include:

1. The adoption by Russia of a citizenship law on July 1, 2002, according to which 80% of the residents of Abkhazia had Russian citizenship, which the Georgian authorities regarded as “annexation of Georgian territories” (a violent act of annexation by a state of all or part of the territory of another state unilaterally).

2. The visa regime between Russia and Georgia played a role.

3. the rise to power of Mikheil Saakashvili, and an intensified course towards restoring the territorial integrity of Georgia, which entailed a series of armed resistance.

In the period from August 14 to August 16, 2008, the leaders of the states involved in hostilities signed a plan for the peaceful settlement of the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict (“Medvedev-Sarkozy Plan”), which formally recorded the end of hostilities in the conflict zone. The confrontation between the parties to the conflict acquired a predominantly political and diplomatic character, largely moving into the sphere of international politics. The results of the clash between Russia and Georgia were large casualties among the civilian population of South Ossetia, as well as huge losses of their own resources.

For Russia specifically, this conflict has become a big disadvantage. The shares of many companies have lost their cost. Many countries responded to this by asking whether Russia can enter into peace agreements with other states if it cannot improve relations with the former republics and its closest neighbors. In the political arena, a comparison of the behavior of Russian President D. Medvedev and Chairman of the Russian Government V. Putin during the conflict made Western observers ask the question “who is in charge in the Kremlin” and come to the answer: “The current conflict has confirmed what has become increasingly clear in recent week: Putin continues to be in charge.” Financial Times commentator Philip Stevens, in the issue dated August 29, 2008, called Medvedev “the nominal president of Russia.” It was also noted that another noticeable consequence of the Georgian conflict can be considered the final collapse of hopes for liberalization of the internal political course that appeared among a certain part of Russian society after the election of Dmitry Medvedev as president.

Political scientist L.F. Shevtsova wrote in the Vedomosti newspaper on September 17: “The war between Russia and Georgia in 2008 was the last chord in the formation of the anti-Western vector of the state and at the same time the finishing touch in the consolidation of the new system. In the 90s, this system existed as a hybrid, which combined incompatible things - democracy and autocracy, economic reforms and state expansion, partnership with the West and suspicion towards it. From now on, the Russian system becomes unambiguous, and there is no longer any doubt about its qualities and its trajectory.<…>The August events confirmed one simple truth: foreign policy in Russia has become an instrument for implementing the domestic political agenda.<…>So we are not dealing with a Russian war against Georgia. We are talking about a confrontation between Russia not even with the United States, but with the West, which is caused not so much by differences in geopolitical interests (there are such differences between Western states, but they do not lead to wars), but by differences in views on the world and the construction of society itself. Georgia turned out to be a whipping boy, and its example should serve as a warning to others, primarily Ukraine. The inclusion of the latter in the Western orbit could be a devastating blow to the system that the Kremlin is currently strengthening.

The conflict has caused different assessments and opinions from governments, international organizations, politicians and public figures different countries. And despite all the comments and assessments of other prominent statesmen, the conflict was still brought to naught.

Conclusion

Military conflicts are becoming a phenomenon today that poses a very serious danger to humanity. This danger is determined by the following points. Firstly, such conflicts bring millions of victims and undermine the very foundations of people’s lives. Secondly, in the context of the “thickening” of international relations, the deepening of the interrelations of all members of the world community, any military conflict can, under certain conditions, turn into a kind of “detonator” of a new world war. Thirdly, military conflicts today aggravate environmental problems. Fourthly, they have a negative impact on the moral and psychological climate in regions, on continents, and throughout the world. This list of properties and consequences of modern military conflicts is far from complete.

Already today there is reason to assume that the likelihood of “raw materials” and “ecological” conflicts in the future may be very high.

And yet, the ideologeme “If only there was no war,” in my opinion, is still relevant today, because war, no matter what its scale, is the most terrible thing. War is a senseless destruction of the population of our Earth, because if we follow the course of history, any military actions end in most cases with the signing of peace treaties, so why are these huge sacrifices needed? Isn’t it already possible to solve everything peacefully?!

And in conclusion, I would like to add, let there be PEACE in the whole WORLD, and not us, not our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will never know what WAR is.

Bibliography

1. Antsiulov A.Ya., Shipilov A.I. Conflictology: Textbook for Universities. - M.: UNITY. 1999.- 534 p.

2. Artsibasov I.N., Egorov S.A. Armed conflict: law, politics, diplomacy. - M.: Knowledge. 1985. – 231 p.

3. Zhukov V.I., Krasnov B.I. General and applied political science. - M.: Politizdat. 1997. – 426 p.

4. Manokhin A.V., Tkachev V.S. Military conflicts: theory, history, practice: Textbook. - St. Petersburg: Peter. 1994. – 367 p.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that conflicts are as old as the hills. They existed before the signing of the Peace of Westphalia - the time that marked the birth of the system of nation states, and they exist now. Conflict situations and disputes, in all likelihood, will not disappear in the future, since, according to the aphoristic statement of one of the researchers R. Lee, a society without conflicts is a dead society. Moreover, many authors, in particular L. Coser, emphasize that the contradictions underlying conflicts have a number of positive functions: they draw attention to the problem, force them to look for ways out of the current situation, prevent stagnation - and thereby contribute to world development. Indeed, conflicts are unlikely to be avoided entirely. Another matter is in what form to resolve them - through dialogue and the search for mutually acceptable solutions or armed confrontation.

8.1. Features of conflicts at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st centuries.

Speaking about the conflicts of the late 20th - early 21st centuries, we should dwell on two important issues that have not only theoretical, but also practical significance.

Has the nature of conflicts changed (if so, what is it about?)

is)?

How can prevent and regulate armed forms of conflict in modern conditions?

The answers to these questions are directly related to the definition of the nature of the modern political system and the possibility of influencing it. Immediately after the end of the Cold War, there was a feeling that the world was on the eve of a conflict-free era of existence. IN academic circles, this position was most clearly expressed by F. Fukuyama when he declared the end of history. It was quite actively supported by official circles, for example the United States, despite the fact that it was in power in the early 1990s. The Republican administration was less inclined, compared to the Democrats, to profess neoliberal views. US President George W. Bush, for example, speaking about the conflict in the Persian Gulf, said that “it interrupted a brief moment of hope, but nevertheless we are witnessing the birth of a new world free of terror.”

Events in the world began to develop in such a way that the number of local and regional conflicts involving violence in the world immediately after the end of the Cold War increased. This is evidenced by data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), one of the leading international centers engaged in conflict analysis, with the majority of them either in developing countries or in the territory of the former USSR or former Yugoslavia. Only in the post-Soviet space, according to V.N. Lysenko, in the 1990s. There were about 170 conflict zones, of which in 30 cases the conflicts proceeded in an active form, and in ten cases it came to the use of force.

Due to the development of conflicts immediately after the end of the cold Warriors and their appearance on the territory of Europe, which was a relatively calm continent after the Second World War, a number of researchers began to put forward various theories related to the growth of conflict potential in world politics. One of the most prominent representatives of this trend was S. Huntington his hypothesis about the clash of civilizations. However, in the second half of the 1990s. the number of conflicts, as well as conflict spots in the world, according to SIPRI, began to decrease; Thus, in 1995 there were 30 major armed conflicts in 25 countries of the world, in 1999 - 27, and also in 25 places on the globe, while in 1989 there were them 36 - in 32 zones.

It should be noted that data on conflicts may vary depending on the source, since there is no clear criterion for what the “level of violence” should be (the number of killed and injured in a conflict, its duration, the nature of relations between the conflicting parties, etc. ) so that the incident is considered a conflict and not an incident, criminal squabbles or terrorist actions. For example, M. Sollenberg and P. Wallensteen define a major armed conflict as “a prolonged confrontation between the armed forces of two or more governments, and one government and at least one organized gun group, resulting in the death of at least 1000 people as a result of hostilities over time.” conflict." Other authors put the figure at 500 or even 100 dead.

In general, if we talk about the general trend in the development of conflicts on the planet, most researchers agree that after a certain surge in the number of conflicts in the late 1980s and early 1990s. their number began to decline in the mid-1990s, and since the late 1990s. continues to remain approximately at the same level.

Nevertheless, modern conflicts pose a very serious threat to humanity due to their possible expansion in the context of globalization, the development of environmental disasters (suffice it to recall the arson of oil wells in the Persian Gulf during Iraq’s attack on Kuwait), serious humanitarian consequences associated with a large number of refugees who suffered among peaceful population, etc. The emergence of armed conflicts in Europe, a region where two world wars broke out, an extremely high population density, and many chemical and other industries, the destruction of which during armed hostilities could lead to man-made disasters, also causes concern.

What are the causes of modern conflicts? Various factors contributed to their development. Thus, problems associated with the proliferation of weapons, their uncontrolled use, and difficult relations between industrial and resource-producing countries, while simultaneously increasing their interdependence, have made themselves felt. To this should be added the development of urbanization and population migration to cities, for which many states, in particular in Africa, were unprepared; the growth of nationalism and fundamentalism as a reaction to the development of globalization processes. It also turned out to be significant that during the Cold War, the global confrontation between East and West to some extent “removed” conflicts of a lower level. These conflicts were often used by the superpowers in their military-political confrontation, although they tried to keep them under control, realizing that otherwise regional conflicts could escalate into a global war. Therefore, in the most dangerous cases, the leaders of the bipolar world, despite the tough confrontation among themselves, coordinated actions to reduce tension in order to avoid a direct clash. Several times such a danger, for example, arose I during the development of the Arab-Israeli conflict during the Cold War. Then each of the superpowers exerted influence on “its” ally in order to reduce the intensity of conflict relations. After the collapse of the bipolar structure, regional and local conflicts largely took on a life of their own.

And yet, among the large number of factors influencing the development of recent conflicts, special mention should be made of the restructuring of the world political system, its departure from the Westphalian model, which dominated for a long time. This process of transition and transformation is associated with the key moments of world political development.

In the new conditions, conflicts have acquired a qualitatively different character. First of all, “classical” interstate conflicts, which were typical for the heyday of the state-centric political model of the world, have practically disappeared from the world stage. Thus, according to M. Sollenberg and P. Wallensteen, of the 94 conflicts that occurred in the world during the period 1989-1994, only four can be considered interstate. Only two of the 27, according to estimates by another SIPRI yearbook author, T. Seybolt, were interstate in 1999. In general, according to some sources, the number of interstate conflicts has been declining for quite a long period of time. However, a reservation should be made here: we are talking specifically about “classical” interstate conflicts, when both sides recognize each other’s status as a state. This is also recognized by other states and leading international organizations. In a number of modern conflicts aimed at the separation of a territorial entity and the proclamation of a new state, one of the parties, declaring its independence, insists on the interstate nature of the conflict, although it is not recognized by anyone (or almost anyone) How state.

Interstate ones have been replaced by internal conflicts, Flowing within the same state. Among them can be divided into three groups:

1) conflicts between the central authorities and an ethnic (religious) group (in groups);

2) between different ethnic or religious groups;

3) between the state (states) and the non-governmental terrorist structure.

All of these groups of conflicts are so-called identity conflicts, because they are associated with the problem of self-identification. At the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century. identification is built primarily not on a state basis, as it was (a person saw himself as a citizen of this or that country), but on another, mainly ethnic and religious one. According to J. Rasmussen, the 2/3 conflicts of 1993 can be defined precisely as identity conflicts. At the same time, according to the famous American political figure S. Talbott, less than 10% of the countries of the modern world are ethnically homogeneous. This means that problems on ethnic grounds alone can be expected in more than 90% of states. Of course, the expressed judgment is an exaggeration, but the problem of national self-determination, national identification remains one of the most significant.

Another significant identification parameter is religious factor, or, more broadly, what S. Huntington called civilizational. It includes, in addition to religion, historical aspects, cultural traditions, etc.

In general, the change in the function of the state, its inability in some cases to guarantee security, and at the same time personal identification to the extent that it was previously - during the heyday of the state-centric model of the world, entails increased uncertainty, the development of protracted conflicts, which fade out, then flare up again. At the same time, internal conflicts involve not so much the interests of the parties as values ​​(religious, ethnic). According to them, reaching a compromise turns out to be impossible.

The intrastate nature of modern conflicts is often accompanied by a process related to the fact that they involve several participants at once (various movements, formations, etc.) with their leaders and structural organization. Moreover, each of the participants often comes up with their own demands. This makes it extremely difficult to regulate the conflict, since it requires reaching the consent of a number of individuals and movements at once. The larger the area of ​​coincidence of interests, the greater the opportunity to find a mutually acceptable solution. As the number of sides increases, this zone narrows.

In addition to the “internal” participants, the conflict situation is influenced by many external actors - state and non-state. The latter include, for example, organizations involved in providing humanitarian assistance, searching for missing people during the conflict, as well as business, the media, etc. The influence of these participants on the conflict often introduces an element of unpredictability into its development. Because of its versatility, it takes on the character of a “many-headed hydra” and, as a result, leads to even more! weakening of government control. In this regard, a number of researchers, in particular A. Mink, R. Kaplan, K. Bus, R. Harvey, began to compare the end of the 20th century with medieval fragmentation, started talking about the “new Middle Ages”, the coming “chaos”, etc. . According to such ideas, today, to the usual interstate contradictions, there are also those caused by differences in culture and values; general degradation of behavior, etc. States turn out to be too weak to cope with all these problems.

The decline in conflict control is also due to other processes occurring at the level of the state in which the conflict breaks out. Regular troops, trained for combat operations in interstate conflicts, turn out to be poorly adapted both from a military and psychological point of view (primarily due to the conduct of military operations on their territory) to resolve internal conflicts by force. The army in such conditions often turns out to be demoralized. In turn, the general weakening of the state leads to a deterioration in the funding of regular troops, which entails the danger of the state losing control over its own army. At the same time, in a number of cases, there is a weakening of state control over events occurring in the country in general, as a result of which the conflict region becomes a kind of “model” of behavior. It must be said that in conditions of internal, especially protracted conflict, not only control over the situation on the part of the center is often weakened, but also within the periphery itself. Leaders of various movements often find themselves unable to maintain discipline among their comrades for a long time, and military commanders go out of control, carrying out independent raids and operations. The armed forces are divided into several efficient groups, often in conflict with each other. Forces involved in internal conflicts often turn out to be extremist, which is accompanied by the desire to “go to the end at the cost of fighting” in order to achieve goals at the expense of unnecessary hardships for the victims. Extreme manifestations of extremism and fanaticism lead to the use of terrorist means and hostage-taking. These phenomena Lately accompany conflicts more and more frequently. Modern conflicts are also acquiring a certain political and geographical orientation. They arise in regions that are more likely to be classified as developing or in the process of transition from authoritarian regimes of government. Even in economically developed Europe, conflicts broke out in those countries that turned out to be less developed. Generally speaking, modern armed conflicts are concentrated primarily in the countries of Africa and Asia.

The appearance of a large number of refugees - another factor complicating the situation in the conflict area. Thus, due to the conflict, about 2 million people left Rwanda in 1994 and ended up in Tanzania, Zaire, and Burundi. None of these countries were able to cope with the flow of refugees and provide them with the basic necessities.

Intrastate conflicts have continued to exist in the 21st century, but new trends have become apparent that cover a wider class of conflict situations - these are asymmetric conflicts. Asymmetric conflicts include conflicts in which the forces of the parties are obviously unequal militarily. Examples of asymmetric conflicts are the operations of a multilateral coalition in Afghanistan in 2001, the United States against Iraq in 2003, the reason for which was suspicions about the production of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq, as well as intrastate conflicts when the central authorities are much stronger than the forces opposing them. Asymmetric conflicts include the fight against international terrorism, conflicts in November-December 2005 in the cities of France, Germany and other countries, which were organized by immigrants from the countries of the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. At the same time, the identity conflicts of the 1990s. were not necessarily asymmetrical.

In principle, asymmetric conflicts themselves are nothing new. They have met several times in history, in particular, when regular troops came into conflict with partisan detachments, rebel movements, etc. A feature of asymmetric conflicts in the 21st century. What happened is that, firstly, they began to dominate among the total number of conflicts, and secondly, they show too large a gap in the technical equipment of the parties. The fact is that at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century. There is a revolution in military affairs, which is focused on the creation of high-precision non-contact weapons. In this case, it is often assumed that the enemy is the state. For example, V.I. Slipchenko writes that modern wars, or wars sixth generation, suggest “the destruction of the potential of any state, at any distance from the enemy, by a non-contact method.” There are several problems here. Firstly, when waging asymmetrical wars with a non-state enemy (terrorist You, rebels, etc.) precision weapons often turn out to be useless. It is ineffective when the target is rebel troops, terrorist groups that are hiding in the mountains or are among the civilian population. In addition, the use of satellites and high-resolution cameras allows the command to monitor the battlefield, however, as S. Brown notes, “a technologically more backward enemy is able to take countermeasures using radar disinformation (as the Serbs did during the conflict in Kosovo).” Secondly, the presence of precision weapons creates a feeling of clear superiority over the enemy, which is true from a technological point of view. But there is also a psychological side that is often not sufficiently taken into account. The opposite, technologically significantly weaker side, on the contrary, relies on psychological aspects, choosing appropriate goals. It is clear that from a military point of view, neither the school in Beslan, nor the theater on Dubrovka in Moscow, nor the buses in London, nor the World Trade Center building in New York had any significance.

The changing nature of modern conflicts does not mean a decrease in their international significance. On the contrary, as a result of the processes of globalization and the problems that are fraught with conflicts at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries, the emergence of a large number of refugees in other countries, as well as the involvement of many States and international organizations in conflict resolution, intrastate conflicts are increasingly acquiring an international dimension.

One of the most important questions when analyzing conflicts is: why are some of them resolved by peaceful means, while others escalate into armed confrontation? In practical terms, the answer is extremely important. However, methodologically, the discovery of universal factors in the escalation of conflicts into armed forces We is far from simple. However, researchers who try to answer this question usually consider two groups of factors:

structural, or, as they are more often called in conflictology, independent variables (structure of society, level of economic development, etc.);

procedural or dependent variables (policy, conduct whether both parties to the conflict and third parties; personal characteristics of political figures, etc.).

Structural factors are often also called objective, procedural - subjective. Here there is a clear analogy between political science and others, in particular with the analysis of democratization problems.

A conflict usually has several phases. American Medovators D. Pruitt and J. Rubin compare the life cycle of a conflict with the development of a plot in a three-act play. The first defines the essence of the conflict; in the second it reaches its maximum, and then stalemate, or denouement; finally, in the third act there is a decline in conflicting relationships. Preliminary studies give reason to believe that in the first phase of conflict development, structural factors set a certain threshold, which is critical in the development of conflict relations. The presence of this group of factors is necessary both for the development of the conflict in general and for the implementation of its armed form. Moreover, the more clearly the structural factors are expressed and the more of them are involved, the more likely the development of an armed conflict (hence, in the literature on conflicts, the armed form of the development of a conflict is often identified with its escalation). In other words, structural factors determine the potential for armed conflict to develop. It is highly doubtful that a conflict, especially an armed one, would arise out of nowhere without objective reasons.

At the culmination phase, predominantly procedural factors begin to play a special role, in particular the orientation of political leaders towards unilateral (conflict) or joint (negotiation) actions with the opposite side to overcome the conflict. The influence of these factors (i.e. political decisions regarding negotiations or further development of the conflict) is quite clearly manifested, for example, when comparing the culminating points of the development of conflict situations in Chechnya and Tatarstan, where the actions of political leaders in 1994 entailed, in the first case, armed development of the conflict, and in the second - a peaceful way to resolve it.

Thus, in a rather generalized form, we can say that1 when studying the process of formation of a conflict situation, structural factors should first of all be analyzed, and when identifying the form of its resolution, procedural factors should be analyzed.

Macroregions of the modern world

This article presents a classification of countries of the world according to macro-geographical regions And continents ( Africa , America , Asia , Europe , Oceania ), used for statistical purposes in the United Nations ( UN ) in accordance with the document “Standard Country or Area Codes for Use in Statistics” developed by the UN Secretariat.

The grouping of countries by UN macroregions is used, among other things, in the All-Russian Classifier of Countries of the World, which is part of the Unified System of Classification and Coding of Technical, Economic and Social Information (ESCC) in the Russian Federation.

· East Asia

· Western Asia

· Southeast Asia

· Southern part of Central Asia

· East Africa

· West Africa

· North Africa

· Central Africa

· Southern Africa

· Eastern Europe

· Western Europe

· Northern Europe

· Southern Europe

·Oceania

Oceania (Australia and New Zealand)

Melanesia

Micronesia

· Polynesia

North and South America

Caribbean

· North America

· Central America

· South America

Regional conflicts of the modern world

Regional conflicts are those conflicts that arise on the basis of contradictions that arise between individual states, their coalitions or individual regional subjects of social interaction within the state; they cover significant geographical and social spaces.

Features of regional conflicts:

1. They are directly related to global ones. On the one hand, they act as one of the forms of emerging global conflicts. On the other hand, they can accelerate the process of maturation of global conflicts;

2. Since regional conflicts are based on economic, political, religious and ideological contradictions, they manifest themselves in the form of national-ethnic and religious clashes. They are protracted and have a direct impact on the entire system of international relations;

3. Regional conflicts differ in the composition of the subjects (administrative-territorial entities, ethnic groups, states or coalitions). The main role among the subjects is played by political, economic and national elites;

4. Regional conflicts differ in their distribution zones. They cover large geographical spaces (regions) and significant masses of people;

5. Regional conflicts differ in their dynamics. Thus, the formation of the image of a conflict situation is directed by the elites and occurs with the active use of the media, and sometimes the means and methods of information warfare. Open conflict interaction can take place in the forms of war, armed conflict, economic sanctions, and ideological confrontation.

The main causes of regional conflicts are 1) the discrepancy between administrative and political boundaries and ethnic ones; 2) territorial claims; 3) religious. The greatest danger to international peace is posed by armed conflicts (the most problematic region is Africa), and one of the most famous conflicts is the “triple” crisis in the Middle East, the Balkan problem and the problem of Western Sahara.

Turkish-Kurdish conflict- an armed conflict between the Turkish government and fighters of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, fighting for the creation of Kurdish autonomy within Turkey, lasting from 1984 to the present.

On beginning of XXI centuries, the Kurds remain the largest of the peoples without their own statehood. The Treaty of Sèvres between Turkey and the Entente (1920) provided for the creation of an independent Kurdistan. However, this treaty never came into force and was annulled after the signing of the Lausanne Treaty (1923). In the 1920s and 1930s, the Kurds unsuccessfully rebelled against the Turkish authorities several times.

South Ossetian conflict (Georgian-South Ossetian conflict) - ethnopolitical conflict in Georgia between the central leadership of Georgia and the Republic of South Ossetia (from the late 1980s to the present). The aggravation of Ossetian-Georgian relations was caused by a sharp intensification of national movements in the last years of the USSR and the desire of small nations to improve their status and form an independent state (the development of separatism in South Ossetia, from the point of view of the Georgian authorities). The development of the conflict was facilitated by the weakening of state power and the subsequent collapse of the USSR.

Arab-Israeli conflict - the confrontation between a number of Arab countries, as well as Arab paramilitary radical groups supported by part of the indigenous Arab population of the Israeli-controlled (occupied) Palestinian territories, on the one hand, and the Zionist movement, and then the State of Israel, on the other. Although the State of Israel was only created in 1948, the history of the conflict actually spans about a century, starting at the end of the 19th century, when the political Zionist movement was created, marking the beginning of the Jewish struggle for their own state.

During the Cold War, it was difficult to imagine that the small Yugoslav provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina or Kosovo could attract the attention of the world community and demand collective action by the leading powers to resolve the conflict that arose in them. The USA and the USSR sought to prevent the escalation of regional conflicts in their spheres of influence and interests, realizing that this would inevitably lead to a clash between the two superpowers. The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the bipolar system of international relations led to a real explosion of local and regional conflicts and their escalation.

Interstate conflicts have given way to regional ones, which have become the main threat to international security. Thus, according to the International Peace Research Institute in Stockholm, in 2005, for the first time, none of the existing conflicts were defined as interstate. Thus, in the new conditions, regional conflicts have acquired new characteristics and features, the identification of which is the purpose of this essay.

Most contemporary regional conflicts are conflicts based on religion, ethnicity or language. Researcher M.M. Lebedeva gives another term - identity conflicts, which are built primarily on an ethnic, religious and cultural-historical basis. Achieving a compromise in such conflicts seems almost impossible, since they are based not so much on the interests of the parties as on values.

This leads to another characteristic of regional conflicts – their protracted nature. American researcher Dan Smith provides the following data: as of 1999, 66% of existing conflicts lasted more than 5 years, and 30% of conflicts lasted more than 20 years. The reasons for the protracted nature of the conflict are often the resumption of hostilities after the conclusion of a truce due to the inability of the warring parties to reach an agreement in the process of developing the terms of the peace agreement or due to disappointment with the transformations that followed its conclusion; the formation of a radical group within the belligerent party that does not want to compromise, the goal of which is “war to a victorious end,” etc. It is impossible not to mention the psychological component: during a protracted war, the warring parties develop a certain type of mentality, which is based on the desire to take revenge (for your family, people, etc.).

The participation of multiple actors – both external and internal – is also a feature of regional conflicts. If earlier regular troops were the main participants in conflict actions, today the main role belongs to the people's militia, field commanders, informal paramilitary groups, etc. The mentioned external actors of conflicts - international organizations, the media - also influence the development of the conflict through their actions (or, as in the case of Rwanda - inaction). The presence of many actors makes regional conflicts difficult to manage and unpredictable in their development.

Modern regional conflicts are also acquiring a certain political and geographical orientation. They arise in regions that are developing or in the process of transition from authoritarian regimes of government to democratic ones. According to research conducted by the Center for International Development and Conflict Management at the University of Maryland, 77 percent of all regional conflicts since the end of the Cold War involved at least one country classified as underdeveloped or developing.

Another characteristic of regional conflicts is localization. Most conflicts are geographically closed, that is, they do not go beyond the boundaries established by the conflict. An example is the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where decades of violence occurred mainly in the east of the country.

A high degree of violence is also inherent in modern regional conflicts. The warring parties are not guided by the “Laws of War” in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, which leads to the physical elimination of the enemy. This is partly due to the already mentioned struggle for values, a compromise on which is not possible, as well as the participants in the conflicts themselves (field commanders, paramilitary groups), who have certain methods of fighting.
And finally, the last characteristic of regional conflicts is the influence of globalization processes on their occurrence. Often the cause of regional conflicts is the struggle for control of oil or water sources (the Middle East) or mineral deposits (diamond fields in Africa), ensuring the safety of gas and oil pipelines, etc.

Thus, at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries. regional conflicts are characterized by a complex of interdependent features, namely the struggle for values ​​(religious, cultural, ethnic, etc.), the presence of many external and internal actors. Regional conflicts are often protracted in nature, arise in regions with a predominance of developing countries, and are localized within a certain territory. A high degree of violence and competition for the possession of resources are also characteristic features of modern regional conflicts.

2. Forms and methods of influencing the conflict in order to prevent it and peacefully resolve it

1. Features of conflicts at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st centuries.

The history of the development of conflictological thought and scientific research on conflicts begins in the 19th century. All works can be divided into five groups for different reasons. The first group includes works that reveal general theoretical problems, ideological and methodological aspects in the study of conflict, and examines various causes of conflict. This direction is most fully represented in the works of K. Marx (theory of class struggle), E. Durkheim (the concept of deviant behavior and solidarity), G. Simmel (the theory of the organic relationship of the processes of association and dissociation), M. Weber, K. Mannheim, L. Coser (functionality of conflict), R. Dahrendorf (theory of polarization of interests), P. Sorokin (theory of incompatibility of opposing values), T. Parsons (theory of social tension), N. Smelser (theory of collective behavior and innovative conflict), L. Kriesberg, K. Boulding, P. Bourdieu, R. Aron, E. Fromm, E. Bern, A. Rapoport, E.Y. Galtung and others. The second group includes the work of conflict researchers in specific areas of life.

These works analyze conflicts at the macro level: strike movements, social tensions in society, interethnic, political, economic, environmental, interstate, etc. conflicts. The third group includes works that study conflicts in work teams, in the production sector, and in management. The fourth group is represented by the most numerous literature by foreign and domestic researchers. These are works on methods and technologies of management, conflict resolution, negotiation technologies, analysis of dead-end and hopeless conflict situations. The fifth group is represented by studies of conflicts in the sphere of world politics. Conflicts are as old as time. They existed before the signing of the Peace of Westphalia - the time taken as the point of birth of the system of nation states; they exist now. Conflict situations and disputes, in all likelihood, will not disappear in the future, since, according to the aphoristic statement of one of the researchers R. Lee, a society without conflicts is a dead society. Moreover, many authors, in particular L. Coser, emphasize that the contradictions underlying conflicts have a number of positive functions: they draw attention to the problem, force them to look for ways out of the current situation, prevent stagnation - and thereby contribute to world development.

Indeed, it is unlikely that conflicts can be avoided completely; it is another matter in what form to resolve them - through dialogue and the search for mutually acceptable solutions or armed confrontation. Speaking about the conflicts of the late 20th - early 21st centuries, we should dwell on two important issues that have not only theoretical, but also practical significance. 1. Has the nature of conflicts changed (how is this manifested)? 2. How can we prevent and regulate armed forms of conflict in modern conditions? The answers to these questions are directly related to determining the nature of the modern political system and the possibility of influencing it. Immediately after the end of the Cold War, there was a feeling that the world was on the eve of a conflict-free era of existence. In academic circles, this position was most clearly expressed by F. Fukuyama when he declared the end of history. It was also quite actively supported by official circles, for example the United States, despite the fact that the Republican administration in power in the early 1990s was less inclined, compared to the Democrats, to profess neoliberal views.

Only in the post-Soviet space, according to the estimates of the domestic author V.N. Lysenko, in the 1990s there were about 170 conflict zones, of which in 30 cases the conflicts proceeded in an active form, and in 10 it came to the use of force. In connection with the development of conflicts immediately after the end of the Cold War and their appearance in Europe, which was a relatively calm continent after the Second World War, a number of researchers began to put forward various theories related to the growth of conflict potential in world politics. One of the most prominent representatives of this trend was S. Huntington with his hypothesis about the clash of civilizations. However, in the second half of the 1990s, the number of conflicts, as well as conflict spots in the world, according to SIPRI, began to decrease. Thus, in 1995 there were 30 major armed conflicts in 25 countries of the world, in 1999 - 27, and the same in 25 parts of the globe, while in 1989 there were 36 of them - in 32 zones.

It should be noted that data on conflicts may vary depending on the source, since there is no clear criterion for what the “level of violence” should be (the number of killed and injured in the conflict, its duration, the nature of relations between the conflicting parties, etc.), so that what happened is considered a conflict, and not an incident, criminal squabbles or terrorist actions. For example, Swedish researchers M. Sollenberg and P. Wallensteen define a major armed conflict as “a prolonged confrontation between the armed forces of two or more governments, or one government and at least one organized armed group, resulting in the death of at least 1000 people as a result of hostilities.” during the conflict."

Other authors put the figure at 100 or even 500 dead. In general, if we talk about the general trend in the development of conflicts on the planet, most researchers agree that after a certain surge in the number of conflicts in the late 1980s - early 1990s, their number began to decline in the mid-1990s, and has remained at approximately the same level since the late 1990s. And yet, modern conflicts pose a very serious threat to humanity due to their possible expansion in the context of globalization, the development of environmental disasters (just remember the arson of oil wells in the Persian Gulf during Iraq’s attack on Kuwait), serious humanitarian consequences associated with a large number of refugees affected among civilian population, etc.

The emergence of armed conflicts in Europe, a region where two world wars broke out, an extremely high population density, and many chemical and other industries, the destruction of which during armed hostilities could lead to man-made disasters, also causes concern.

What are the causes of modern conflicts? Various factors contributed to their development. 1. Problems associated with the proliferation of weapons, their uncontrolled use, difficult relations between industrial and resource-producing countries while simultaneously increasing their interdependence. 2. The development of urbanization and population migration to cities, for which many states, in particular Africa, were unprepared. 3. The growth of nationalism and fundamentalism as a reaction to the development of globalization processes. 4. During the Cold War, the global confrontation between East and West to some extent “resolved” lower-level conflicts.

These conflicts were often used by the superpowers in their military-political confrontation, although they tried to keep them under control, realizing that otherwise regional conflicts could escalate into a global war. Therefore, in the most dangerous cases, the leaders of the bipolar world, despite the harsh confrontation among themselves, coordinated actions to reduce tensions in order to avoid a direct clash. Such a danger arose several times, for example, during the development of the Arab-Israeli conflict during the Cold War. Then each of the superpowers exerted influence on “its” ally in order to reduce the intensity of conflict relations.

After the collapse of the bipolar structure, regional and local conflicts largely took on a life of their own. 5. Particular attention should be paid to the restructuring of the world political system, its “departure” from the Westphalian model, which dominated for a long time. This process of transition and transformation is associated with key moments of global political development.

In the new conditions, conflicts have acquired a qualitatively different character. Firstly, “classical” interstate conflicts, which were typical for the heyday of the state-centric political model of the world, have practically disappeared from the world stage. Thus, according to researchers M. Sollenberg and P. Wallensteen, of the 94 conflicts that occurred in the world during the period 1989–1994, only four can be considered interstate. In 1999, only two out of 27, according to estimates by another author of the SIPRI yearbook T.B. Saybolt, were interstate.

In general, according to some sources, the number of interstate conflicts has been declining for quite a long period of time. However, a reservation should be made here: we are talking specifically about “classical” interstate conflicts, when both sides recognize each other’s status as a state. This is also recognized by other states and leading international organizations. In a number of modern conflicts aimed at separating a territorial entity and proclaiming a new state, one of the parties, declaring its independence, insists on the interstate nature of the conflict, although it is not recognized by anyone (or almost anyone) as a state. Secondly, interstate conflicts have been replaced by internal conflicts occurring within one state.

Among them three groups can be distinguished:

Conflicts between central authorities and ethnic/religious group(s);

Between different ethnic or religious groups;

Between the state/states and a non-governmental (terrorist) structure. All of these groups of conflicts are so-called identity conflicts, as they are associated with the problem of self-identification.

At the end of the twentieth - beginning of the twenty-first century. identification is built primarily not on a state basis, as it was (a person saw himself as a citizen of this or that country), but on another, mainly ethnic and religious one. According to the American author J.L. Rasmussen, two thirds of the conflicts of 1993 can be defined precisely as “identity conflicts.”

At the same time, according to the famous American political figure S. Talbott, less than 10% of the countries of the modern world are ethnically homogeneous. This means that problems on ethnic grounds alone can be expected in more than 90% of states. Of course, the expressed judgment is an exaggeration, but the problem of national self-determination, national identification remains one of the most significant. Another significant identification parameter is the religious factor, or, in a broader sense, what S. Huntington called the civilizational factor. It includes, in addition to religion, historical aspects, cultural traditions, etc. In general, the change in the function of the state, its inability in some cases to guarantee security, and at the same time personal identification, to the extent that it was previously - during the heyday of the state-centric model of the world, entails increased uncertainty, the development of protracted conflicts that They either fade away or flare up again.

At the same time, internal conflicts involve not so much the interests of the parties as values ​​(religious, ethnic). According to them, reaching a compromise turns out to be impossible. The intrastate nature of modern conflicts is often accompanied by a process associated with the fact that they involve several participants at once (various movements, formations, etc.) with their leaders and structural organization. Moreover, each of the participants often comes up with their own demands. This makes it extremely difficult to regulate the conflict, since it requires reaching the consent of a number of individuals and movements at once. The larger the area of ​​coincidence of interests, the greater the opportunity to find a mutually acceptable solution.

Decreasing area of ​​coincidence of interests as the number of parties increases. In addition to the participants, the conflict situation is influenced by many external actors - state and non-state. The latter include, for example, organizations involved in providing humanitarian assistance, searching for missing persons during the conflict, as well as business, the media, etc. The influence of these participants on the conflict often introduces an element of unpredictability into its development. Due to its versatility, it acquires the character of a “many-headed hydra” and, as a consequence, leads to an even greater weakening of state control.

In this regard, a number of researchers, in particular A. Mink, R. Kaplan, K. Bus, R. Harvey, began to compare the end of the twentieth century with medieval fragmentation, started talking about the “new Middle Ages”, the coming “chaos”, etc. . According to such ideas, today, to the usual interstate contradictions, there are also those caused by differences in culture and values; general degradation of behavior, etc. States turn out to be too weak to cope with all these problems. The decline in conflict control is also due to other processes occurring at the level of the state in which the conflict breaks out.

Regular troops, trained for combat operations in interstate conflicts, turn out to be poorly adapted both from a military and psychological point of view (primarily due to military operations on their territory) to resolve internal conflicts by force. The army in such conditions often turns out to be demoralized. In turn, the general weakening of the state leads to a deterioration in the funding of regular troops, which entails the danger of the state losing control over its own army. At the same time, in a number of cases, there is a weakening of state control over events occurring in the country in general, as a result of which the conflict region becomes a kind of “model” of behavior. It must be said that in conditions of internal, especially protracted conflict, not only control over the situation on the part of the center, but also within the periphery itself is often weakened.

Leaders of various kinds of movements often find themselves unable to maintain discipline among their comrades for a long time, and field commanders go out of control, carrying out independent raids and operations. The armed forces are divided into several separate groups, often in conflict with each other. Forces involved in internal conflicts often turn out to be extremist, which is accompanied by the desire to “go to the end at any cost” in order to achieve goals at the expense of unnecessary hardships and sacrifices. Extreme manifestations of extremism and fanaticism lead to the use of terrorist means and hostage-taking. These phenomena have recently accompanied conflicts more and more often.

Modern conflicts are also acquiring a certain political and geographical orientation. They arise in regions that can be classified, rather, as developing or in the process of transition from authoritarian regimes of government. Even in economically developed Europe, conflicts broke out in those countries that turned out to be less developed. Generally speaking, modern armed conflicts are concentrated primarily in the countries of Africa and Asia. The appearance of a large number of refugees is another factor complicating the situation in the conflict area.

Thus, due to the conflict, about 2 million people left Rwanda in 1994 and ended up in Tanzania, Zaire, and Burundi. None of these countries were able to cope with the flow of refugees and provide them with the basic necessities. The change in the nature of modern conflicts from interstate to internal does not mean a decrease in their international significance. On the contrary, as a result of the processes of globalization and the problems that are fraught with conflicts of the late twentieth - early twenty-first centuries, the appearance of a large number of refugees in other countries, as well as the involvement of many states and international organizations in their settlement, internal state conflicts are increasingly becoming international coloring One of the most important questions when analyzing conflicts is: why are some of them resolved by peaceful means, while others escalate into armed confrontation? In practical terms, the answer is extremely important.

However, methodologically, the discovery of universal factors in the escalation of conflicts into armed forms is far from simple. Nevertheless, researchers who try to answer this question usually consider two groups of factors: structural factors, or, as they are more often called in conflictology, independent variables (structure of society, level of economic development, etc.); procedural factors, or dependent variables (policies pursued by both the parties to the conflict and the third party; personal characteristics of politicians, etc.). Structural factors are often also called objective, and procedural factors - subjective. There is a clear analogy here in political science with others, in particular with the analysis of problems of democratization.

A conflict usually has several phases. American researchers L. Pruitt and J. Rubin compare the life cycle of a conflict with the development of a plot in a three-act play. The first defines the essence of the conflict; in the second it reaches its maximum, and then stalemate, or denouement; finally, in the third act there is a decline in conflicting relationships. Preliminary studies give reason to believe that in the first phase of conflict development, structural factors “set” a certain “threshold” that is critical in the development of conflict relations. The presence of this group of factors is necessary both for the development of the conflict in general and for the implementation of its armed form. Moreover, the more clearly the structural factors are expressed and the more of them are “involved,” the more likely the development of an armed conflict is (hence, in the literature on conflicts, the armed form of conflict development is often identified with its escalation) and yet the possible field of activity for politicians (procedural factors) becomes possible. In other words, structural factors determine the potential for armed conflict to develop. It is highly doubtful that a conflict, especially an armed one, would arise “out of nowhere” without objective reasons. In the second (culmination) phase, predominantly procedural factors begin to play a special role, in particular the orientation of political leaders towards unilateral (conflict) or joint (negotiation) actions with the opposite side to overcome the conflict. The influence of these factors (i.e. political decisions regarding negotiations or further development of the conflict) is quite clearly manifested, for example, when comparing the culminating points of the development of conflict situations in Chechnya and Tatarstan, where the actions of political leaders in 1994 entailed, in the first case, armed development of the conflict, and in the second - a peaceful way to resolve it.

Thus, in a rather generalized form, we can say that when studying the process of formation of a conflict situation, structural factors should first be analyzed, and when identifying the form of its resolution, procedural factors should be analyzed. Conflicts of the late 20th - early 21st centuries. are generally characterized by the following: intrastate character; international sound; loss of identity; the multiplicity of parties involved in the conflict and its resolution; significant irrationality of the parties' behavior; poor handling; high degree of information uncertainty; involvement in the discussion of values ​​(religious, ethnic).

Structure and phases of the conflict

It should be noted that conflict, as a system, never appears in a “finished” form. In any case, it represents a process or a set of development processes that appear as a certain integrity. At the same time, in the process of development, there may be a change in the subjects of the conflict, and, consequently, in the nature of the contradictions underlying the conflict.

The study of the conflict in its successively changing phases allows us to consider it as a single process with different but interconnected aspects: historical (genetic), cause-and-effect and structural-functional.

The phases of conflict development are not abstract diagrams, but real, historically and socially determined specific states of the conflict as a system. Depending on the essence, content and form of a particular conflict, the specific interests and goals of its participants, the means used and the possibilities of introducing new ones, the involvement of others or the exit of existing participants, the individual course and general international conditions of its development, an international conflict can pass through a variety of including non-standard phases.

According to R. Setov, there are three most important phases of conflict: latent, crisis, war. Coming from a dialectical understanding of conflict as a qualitatively new situation in international relations, which arose due to a quantitative accumulation of mutually directed hostile actions, it is necessary to outline its boundaries in the interval from the emergence of a controversial situation between two participants in international relations and the associated confrontation to the final settlement of those or in a different way.

The conflict can develop in two main options, which can be conventionally called classic (or confrontational) and compromise.

The classic development option provides for a forceful settlement, which underlies the relations between the warring parties and is characterized by an aggravation of relations between them, close to the maximum. This development of events consists of four phases:

exacerbation

escalation

de-escalation

fading conflict

In a conflict, a full course of events occurs, from the emergence of disagreements to their resolution, including the struggle between participants in international relations, which, to the extent that resources of the maximum possible volume are included in it, intensifies, and after achieving this, gradually fades away.

The compromise option, unlike the previous one, does not have a forceful nature, since in such a situation the aggravation phase, reaching a value close to the maximum, does not develop in the direction of further confrontation, but at the point at which a compromise between the parties is still possible, continues through détente. This option for resolving disagreements between participants in international relations involves achieving agreement between them, including through mutual concessions that partially satisfied the interests of both parties and, ideally, means a non-forceful settlement of the conflict.

But basically there are six phases of conflict, which we will consider. Namely:

The first phase of the conflict is a fundamental political attitude formed on the basis of certain objective and subjective contradictions and the corresponding economic, ideological, international legal, military-strategic, diplomatic relations regarding these contradictions, expressed in a more or less acute conflict form.

The second phase of the conflict is the subjective determination by the direct parties to the conflict of their interests, goals, strategies and forms of struggle to resolve objective or subjective contradictions, taking into account their potential and possibilities of using peaceful and military means, using international alliances and obligations, assessing the general domestic and international situation. At this phase, the parties determine or partially implement a system of mutual practical actions, which have the nature of a struggle of cooperation, in order to resolve the contradiction in the interests of one or another party or on the basis of a compromise between them.

The third phase of the conflict consists in the use by the parties of a fairly wide range of economic, political, ideological, psychological, moral, international legal, diplomatic and even military means (without using them, however, in the form of direct armed violence), involvement in one form or another in struggle directly by the conflicting parties of other states (individually, through military-political alliances, treaties, through the UN) with the subsequent complication of the system of political relations and actions of all direct and indirect parties in this conflict.

The fourth phase of the conflict is associated with an increase in the struggle to the most acute political level - a political crisis, which can cover the relations of the direct participants, the states of a given region, a number of regions, major world powers, and in some cases - become a world crisis, which gives the conflict an unprecedented severity and contains a direct threat that military force will be used by one or more parties.

The fifth phase is an armed conflict, starting with a limited conflict (limitations cover objectives, territories, scale and level of hostilities, military means used, the number of allies and their global status), capable under certain circumstances of developing to a higher level of armed struggle with the use of modern weapons and the possible involvement of allies by one or both sides. It should also be pointed out that if we consider this phase of the conflict in dynamics, then it is possible to distinguish a number of semi-phases, meaning the escalation of hostilities.

The sixth phase of the conflict is the phase of extinction and resolution, which involves gradual de-escalation, i.e. reducing the level of intensity, more active involvement of diplomatic means, searching for mutual compromises, reassessing and adjusting national-state interests. In this case, conflict resolution may be the result of the efforts of one or all parties to the conflict, or it may begin as a result of pressure from a “third” party, which may be a major power, an international organization.

Insufficient resolution of the contradictions that led to the conflict, or the fixation of a certain level of tension in relations between the conflicting parties in the form of their acceptance of a certain modus vivendi, is the basis for a possible re-escalation of the conflict. Actually, such conflicts are protracted, periodically fading away, they explode again with renewed vigor. A complete cessation of conflicts is possible only when the contradiction that caused its emergence is resolved in one way or another.

Thus, the signs discussed above can be used for the initial identification of a conflict. But at the same time, it is always necessary to take into account the high mobility of the line between such phenomena as military conflict itself and war. The essence of these phenomena is the same, but it has a different degree of concentration in each of them. Hence the well-known difficulty in distinguishing between war and military conflict.

In Moscow, in the Hall of Church Councils of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, on November 1, 2016, under the chairmanship of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, a plenary meeting of the XX World Russian People's Council was held on the topic “Russia and the West: dialogue of peoples in search of answers to civilizational challenges.”

Present on the presidium of the Council were: Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsky and Kolomna; First Deputy Head of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation S. V. Kiriyenko; Chairman of the Writers' Union of Russia, Deputy Head of the VRNS V. N. Ganichev; Chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation V. D. Zorkin; Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation Yu. Ya. Chaika; Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation V. R. Medinsky; Deputy Chairman of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation I. A. Yarovaya; State Secretary - Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation G. B. Karasin; Rector of Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosova V. A. Sadovnichy; Executive Director for Manned Space Programs of the Roscosmos State Corporation, Hero Soviet Union, Hero of the Russian Federation, member of the Bureau of the Presidium of the ARNS, cosmonaut S. K. Krikalev; other officials.

The greeting of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin was announced by the First Deputy Head of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation S.V. Kiriyenko. It says, in part: “I consider the World Russian People’s Council as a very important, sought-after initiative aimed at uniting all the constructive forces of society around unshakable humanistic ideals and values. After all, for centuries it was they who set the life guidelines and traditions of our people and helped the country move forward.”

As always, the main event of the plenary session was the report of the Chairman of the VRNS, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, which we publish below with slight abbreviations

When it comes to the relationship between Russia and the West, even about the phrase “Russia and the West” itself, two types of associations usually arise. The first is associated with the idea that Western society is invariably the bearer of advanced ideas and achievements; comfort, material well-being and scientific and technological progress are associated with it; the Russian one lags behind in its development. At the same time, in order to get on the “right” tracks, Russia only needs to adopt the social, political, and economic directions of development that characterize the life of the West, that is, copy existing models and carefully study the development trends of Western society. As history has shown, such a “catch-up development” approach can hardly be called consistent with national interests; In addition, the very principle of “catching up” a priori presupposes backwardness. If we catch up, then we always fall behind, so in this very approach, which presents the Western model as an ideal and as an example for development, there is something dangerous for the development of Russia.

The second idea expresses the idea of ​​a supposedly irreconcilable, innate antagonism that exists between two worlds: the civilization of the West and the civilization of the Russian world.

Supporters of both models can and do cite a sufficient number of historical examples to confirm their correctness. True, these examples will be quite contradictory.

There are examples when the assimilation of the achievements of Western civilization was beneficial for Russia: how can we not, in particular, recall the “golden” Pushkin age of Russian culture, and, of course, the impressive successes of the development of Russia in the 18th century, in certain periods of the 19th century and, at least at the beginning of the 20th century.

At the same time, it should be remembered that the blind transfer of alien ideological models and political models to Russian soil, without taking into account national specifics and spiritual and cultural context, often, or better yet, almost always led to large-scale upheavals and tragedies, as happened in our country at the beginning and end of the last century.

In the history of our relations with the Western world, there were moments of open armed confrontation when resistance to aggression was a matter of life and death for our people. This was the case, for example, in 1612, 1812 and 1941, when we defended our right to life, liberty and independence.

But even for Western society, confrontation with Russia often led to very disastrous consequences. The confrontation aggravated existing contradictions, led to great economic, political and reputational losses, and, most importantly, cost considerable human casualties.

At the same time, it is important to understand that what we generally call the “Western world” is far from a homogeneous substance. There are transnationalist globalists, there are Christian traditionalists, there are Eurosceptic nationalists, there are leftists. And today it is necessary to clarify every time: what kind of Europe are we talking about? There are a lot of “Europes” today. One has religious values, the other has narrow national values, and the third has globalist values. We need to understand how to treat each of them.

That is why both models describing Russia’s relations with the United States and European countries - both catch-up and confrontational - no longer correspond to the real spiritual and cultural situation in the world. I think it is very important for us to understand this and build on this in determining our future relations with the West.

The second important point to consider is the sense of deep identity crisis engulfing Western society. At the heart of this crisis lies a contradiction of a spiritual order: on the one hand, globalist tendencies operate in society, the ideas of deliberate secularism and utilitarianism are actively promoted, and on the other hand, all this encounters resistance from national cultural traditions that have Christian history and Christian spiritual roots.

As a result, the modern model of society is less and less able to reproduce itself. It is no longer able to follow the ideals that were inscribed on the banners of the bourgeois revolutions of the 16th-19th centuries. The words “brotherhood” and “equality” have long since disappeared from the liberal political vocabulary, although they once occupied a very important, one might say, central place in it. But many more clarifying definitions of the word “democracy” have appeared, which precisely indicates problems with democratic institutions and principles. It's the same story with human rights. In some parts of the world their violations are not noticed, in others they pay close attention and even exaggerate.

But there are signs that indicate a possible gradual change in ideological coordinates. This is evidenced, in particular, by processes that are already quite obvious in a number of European countries, where there is a social demand for a return to moral values, including Christian ones.

Another important aspect of cooperation is cultural exchange. And here the main thing is to wisely separate true values ​​from false values.

God created man free. And each individual person, and entire peoples and groups of peoples are free to choose their own path - the path of cultural creativity, the path of development and, speaking in religious language, the path of collaboration with God. The freedom given to us by the Creator excludes the presence of a single, unalternative path of development, in which some peoples succeed while others lag behind.

Therefore, it would be correct to talk not about the opposite paths of development of Russia and the West and not about the catching-up vector of Russian development, but, following the great Russian scientist Nikolai Danilevsky, to recognize the fact of a parallel path of development of our societies. Parallel in this case does not mean isolated. Parallel does not imply mutual exclusion. The parallel insists on originality and on the right to exist of both paths of development.

At the same time, we, representatives of the Russian world, urge you to pay attention not only to changes in the external conditions of our existence, but also to internal changes that affect the human soul.

The undermining of the moral foundation of human existence, which is happening before our eyes, threatens to dehumanize the world. It is no coincidence that futurologists are increasingly raising the topic of posthumanism, and transhumanism - the doctrine of the imminent overcoming of human nature and the emergence of a new class of intelligent beings - is becoming increasingly popular.

Finally, we cannot help but mention the problem of uneven socio-economic development, largely generated by unfair international economic relations.

Such is the difference in approaches to a wide range of global problems. The question, however, is that this difference is, unfortunately, becoming more and more aggravated every year. The reason for this is the growing value gap between Russia and the countries of Western civilization, which did not exist even during the Cold War.

At that time, the West was still united and did not question the Christian foundations of its identity, and in the USSR, despite the declarative atheism of the Soviet state, Christian values ​​and traditional ethics formed in a Christian society largely dominated, which is so clearly presented in our Soviet cinema and our Soviet literature. Thanks to this common value base, a dialogue was possible that lasted for decades, despite the differences in ideologies and economic models. The very fact of conducting such a dialogue contributed to the solution of many problems, and I am sure, ultimately helped to prevent the Third World War.

Here I would like to say a few more words about the external activities of the Russian Church at that time. You know that our Church actively participated in the so-called ecumenical movement - it was a dialogue with Western Christians. Why did this dialogue become possible? Yes, because in Western Christians, due to their, first of all, ethical position, we saw our like-minded people. We saw that the Western Christian world undoubtedly shares the same values ​​regarding the human person, family, relationship to God, nature, man, and this created the preconditions for dialogue. Today this common value platform has been destroyed because a significant part of Western Christianity is revising the fundamental gospel moral positions for the sake of the powers that be. Therefore, the dialogue has suspended, with the exception of our relations with the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church - and God grant that it will always be so - despite the enormous pressure from the outside world, remains faithful to the Gospel values. Our external inter-church, inter-Christian ties today practically do not include real dialogue with Western Protestantism. This indicates that new dividing lines have emerged, and not only of an interfaith, but also of a clearly civilizational nature.

The de-Christianization of Europe and America calls into question the common value framework that existed throughout much of the 20th century. This leads to total misunderstanding, when mutual deafness arises when discussing the most pressing issues. When one side indignantly asks: “How can you publicly insult the religious feelings of millions of people?”, and the other, with no less indignation, asks a counter question: “How can you infringe on someone’s right to free expression?”

It must be recognized that the intrusion into previously taboo sensitive areas, including the sphere of religious feelings, complicates the mutual understanding of some European and American elites not only with Russia, but also with other world cultures based on traditional religious ethics - first of all, of course , with the Muslim world. The massive information invasion largely fuels and provokes the growth of Islamic radicalism, which justifies its actions with aggressive secular policies and the spiritual unprincipledness of a hostile (in their view) Western society.

Therefore, the challenge of international terrorism, with which we began the list of common challenges, in relation to which the positions of Russia, the United States and European regions are still quite close, should also be considered in connection with the problem of the destruction of traditional moral and ethical norms. These are interconnected challenges threatening humanity. And the question arises: isn’t the challenge and practice of radical Islam a response to the challenges of radical secularism? And if the global extremist activity of radical Islamists is determined not only by ideological reasons, but also by many others, well known to politicians, scientists and everyone who studies the problem modern terrorism, then, at least as a trigger, as an argument for recruiting honest people, a reference to the godless and dehumanized civilization of the West is undoubtedly used. You will not seduce an honest Muslim with anything else, unless you call him to fight the “diabolical civilization.” Therefore, it is necessary to consider both of these phenomena in conjunction - terrorism as an absolutely unacceptable method that brings enormous suffering to innocent people, and radical secularism, which excludes any other point of view and assumes that the whole world should be built according to a model determined by the elites of some countries

The growing value gap between civilizations is alarming. If mutual understanding is not reached, we will not be able to offer answers to the challenges of our time that are acceptable to everyone. Further deepening of contradictions risks turning into an insurmountable ideological chasm.

However, the possibility of continuing the dialogue and “building bridges” does not look hopeless today. Many facts suggest that the fundamental rejection of traditional spiritual and moral values, which Western elites insist on, does not find widespread support among the people. We know that, in addition to the officialdom we are used to, formed by the media, there is another America and another Europe.

Within American and European societies there is a strong desire to preserve their Christian roots and cultural traditions. This desire finds expression in religious pursuits, artistic creativity and everyday life.

Thus, along with new dangers, new hopes appear. The meeting in Havana with Pope Francis showed the high interest in dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church on the part of the Catholic world on the entire range of issues that we are discussing today.

Meanwhile, in my opinion, the most acute conflict of our time is not the “clash of civilizations” declared by the American philosopher Samuel Huntington, not the struggle of religious and national cultures among themselves, as the powers that be often want to imagine, and not even the confrontation between East and West, North and South, but a clash of a transnational, radical, secular globalist project with all traditional cultures and with all local civilizations. And this struggle takes place not only along the borders dividing states and regions, but also within countries and peoples, and it is possible that within our country. And here there is a collision of two worlds, two views of man and the future of human civilization.

The true alternative to this process is not a “war of all against all,” not the plunge of the world into chaos or civil clashes within individual countries, but a new dialogue of peoples, carried out on fundamentally new grounds. This is a dialogue aimed at restoring value unity, within the framework of which each of the civilizations, including ours, Russian, could exist while maintaining its identity.

Based on materials from the site http://www.vrns.ru