A.I. Vladimirov. "The main trends in the development of the modern world and its state in the paradigm of the general theory of war". Five trends that are now defining our world Cars save pedestrians

On June 14, 2012, the All-Russian Scientific Conference "Global Trends in the Development of the World" was held at the Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The participants identified the main global trends in world development in the coming decades, including the redistribution of players in the global energy market, new industrialization, intensive migration, the concentration of information resources, and the increase in global crises. The main problems facing humanity were also named, including maintaining the food balance, the need to build a global system for managing the world (world legislative, executive and judicial authorities).

Keywords: globalization, global crisis, economic cycles, management, post-industrialism, energy.

The All-Russian conference “Global trends of the world development” was held on June 14, 2012, at the Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The participants defined the main global trends of the world development for the next decades among which are redistribution on the world’s energy market, reindustrialization, intensive migration, centralization of the mass-media, and more frequent world crises. The most important problems of the future globalizing world were also defined including the maintenance of the global food supply balance, organization of the global management system (world legislative, executive and judiciary powers).

keywords: globalization, world crisis, economic cycles, governance, postindustrialism, energy.

On June 14, 2012, the All-Russian Scientific Conference "Global Trends in the Development of the World" was held in Moscow at the Institute for Scientific Information in Social Sciences (INION) of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The organizers were the Center for Problem Analysis and State Management Design at the UN RAS, the Central Economics and Mathematics Institute of the RAS, INION RAS, the Institute of Economics of the RAS, the Institute of Philosophy of the RAS, the Faculty of Global Processes and the Faculty of Political Science of Lomonosov Moscow State University.

The conference was attended by Director of the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences Ruslan Grinberg, Director of the Center for Problem Analysis and State Management Design Stepan Sulakshin, foreign member of the Russian Academy of Sciences Askar Akaev, First Vice President of the Russian Philosophical Society Alexander Chumakov and others.

Taking into account the unfolding process of globalization, the relevance of the topic, as stressed by the chairman of the conference, head of the Department of Public Policy of Moscow State University and scientific director of the Center for Problem Analysis and State Management Design Vladimir Yakunin, does not even need special justification. The world is uniting, ties between countries are becoming stronger and closer, and mutual influence is becoming more and more inevitable. This is felt especially strongly today, during the global financial and economic crisis. A vivid example suggests itself thanks to one coincidence: the conference took place literally on the eve of the parliamentary elections in Greece, the result of which actually determined whether the country would remain in the eurozone or leave it. And this, in turn, would have an impact both directly and indirectly in various and far from always predictable ways on the entire world that has become global and, ultimately, on each of its inhabitants.

Vladimir Yakunin: "One of the biggest dangers is the global domination of the consumer society"

At the beginning of his report "Global Trends in Modern World Development", which opened the plenary session of the conference, Vladimir Yakunin, head of the Department of Public Policy of Moscow State University, listed the main directions on which the shape of the future world depends:

· development of energy, including the development of alternative energy sources;

· the possibility of "new industrialism" (and global civilizational conflicts, conflicts of the real and virtual economy, as well as the possibility of neo-industrialism);

Maintaining the food balance in the world, providing the population of the planet with drinking water;

• migration and changes in the composition of the population;

the movement of information flows.

Most of Vladimir Yakunin's speech was devoted to the energy theme. Speaking about energy as one of the main factors of the future, he stressed that we are in a period of changing energy patterns: the oil pattern, apparently, is already beginning to give way to the gas one. The oil supply is finite, and although fossil fuels are predicted to remain the main source of primary energy in the coming decades and will provide 3/4 of the world's energy needs by 2030, alternative energy sources are already being developed today.

According to experts, non-recoverable energy resources today account for at least 1/3 of all hydrocarbon reserves, the volume of non-recoverable gas is 5 times greater than the world's recoverable gas reserves. These resources will account for 45% of all consumption in a few decades. By 2030, "non-traditional" gas will take 14% of the market.

In this regard, the role of new technologies is becoming increasingly important: countries that can develop and apply appropriate technologies will take the lead.

It is important to foresee how Russia's position will change in connection with this process.

Some of our politicians so actively called the country an energy power that they believed it even abroad: foreign colleagues began to build a system to counter the superpower. However, this is nothing more than a rhetorical formula that has little in common with reality.

Qatar, Iran and Russia will apparently remain traditional suppliers. But the United States, which is actively developing new technologies (in particular, shale gas production), may become not importers, but exporters of hydrocarbon raw materials as early as 2015, and this will certainly have an impact on the world market and may shake Russia's position.

China, traditionally a "coal" country, by 2030 will depend on oil imports by no less than 2/3. The same can be said about India.

The obvious, according to Vladimir Yakunin, is the need for a radical change in the management of the energy system, the introduction of an international system for regulating energy production.

“I avoid the word “globalism” because it has acquired a clear political connotation. When we say “globalism”, we mean that the world has become unified, has shrunk thanks to information flows and world trade. And for politicians, this is a well-established system of dominance in their own interests,” Vladimir Yakunin emphasized.

Then the speaker described another major factor that will influence the face of the world - the new industrialism. He recalled David Cameron's recent speeches: at very representative meetings, the British prime minister repeatedly returned to the idea of ​​reindustrialization of Great Britain. Thus, despite the fact that Britain is associated with the Anglo-Saxon model of the world, which postulated the idea of ​​post-industrialism, the British establishment itself begins to understand the failure of this theory, which underlies the neoliberal approach. Against the backdrop of slogans that material production is losing its role in the economy, harmful production is being withdrawn to developing countries, where centers of industrial development are being formed. Vladimir Yakunin stressed that there is no percentage decline in material production.

The theory of post-industrialism is the rationale for the practice of a new redistribution of wealth in exchange for virtual values.

Now these values, generated by the giant financial sector, are increasingly divorced from real values. The ratio of the real and virtual economy according to some data is 1:10 (the volume of the real economy is estimated at 60 trillion dollars, the volume of paper money, derivatives, etc. is estimated at 600 trillion dollars).

The speaker noted that the distance between crises is shrinking. It was also said about the model of crises developed at the Center for Problem Analysis and State-Administrative Design, according to which - at least in a mathematical perspective - a continuous state of crisis will soon come (Fig. 1).

Rice. 1. Zero-point forecast for the global dollar pyramid

Speaking about changes in the world population, Yakunin mentioned some significant trends, in particular the change in the ratio of Catholics and Muslims. The ratio of the number of working population and pensioners in 50 years will change from today's 5:1 to 2:1.

Finally, one of the most striking global trends is the colossal monopolization of the information sector. If in 1983 there were 50 media corporations in the world, then in less than 20 years their number has decreased to six.

Vladimir Yakunin noted that now, with the help of information technology, some countries can be classified as "losers", while others can be made bearers of world values ​​that are being imposed on all of humanity.

And yet the main problem of the global world, according to Vladimir Yakunin, is not food or water, but the loss of morality, the threat of relegating people's interests exclusively to material goods. The establishment of the global dominance of the values ​​of the consumer society is one of the greatest dangers of the future world.

Ruslan Grinberg: “Right-liberal philosophy has gone out of fashion”

The plenary session was continued by Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of Economics of the Academy of Sciences (IE RAS) Ruslan Grinberg. In the report “World Trends and Chances of Eurasian Integration”, the scientist stated “four returns”, which we are now witnessing.

The first return is the centralization and concentration of capital. According to the speaker, literally the same processes of capital concentration, mergers and acquisitions are taking place now as in the late 19th - early 20th centuries. The crisis of Keynesianism and the triumphant march of liberalism brought to life the formula small is beautiful - “small is beautiful”. But this, the director of the Institute of Economics believes, was only a deviation from the general trend: in fact, giants rule the world. in this context, the discussion in Russia about the benefits of state corporations is typical.

The second return is the return of the material economy. Here Ruslan Grinberg referred to the previous report, in which Vladimir Yakunin mentioned the speeches of David Cameron.

“The financial sector ceases to be a goal and again becomes a means of economic development,” the scientist states.

The third is the return of cycles. It seemed that the cycles had been overcome, the world had developed a serious arsenal of actions against cyclical development, especially monetary policy within the framework of monetarism - here it must be praised - worked very effectively, Ruslan Grinberg admits.

However, the cycles returned. There is a discussion about the nature of the current crisis. “As president of the Kondratiev Foundation, I should have stood by our scientist to the death, but I agree more with Simon Kuznets's theory,” the speaker says.

“I lean towards a simple theory of fat and lean years,” says the scientist. - After 130 months of rapid growth in the West, the "golden age" of the economy, the fashion for deregulation came an investment pause. It is unlikely that it is connected with the transition to a new way of life.

Finally, the fourth return is the return of the imperative of global regulation. The global economy requires a global regulator, Ruslan Grinberg is convinced, otherwise it cannot develop further. Here a problem arises: there are abstract talks about global peace, but countries do not want to lose their national sovereignties.

Speaking about potential conflicts, the director of the Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences, noted that the shrinking of the middle class, which is taking place on a global scale, could become the basis for them.

As a result of the victory of liberalism, a middle class arose, which led, as it were, to a classless society. Now there is a return to classes again, a "revolt" of the middle class. This can be seen with particular force in Russia, Ruslan Grinberg is convinced. A characteristic feature of this "uprising" is dissatisfaction with the authorities, but the absence of a real project. This paves the way for right-wing and left-wing populists to win elections.

It seems that 500 years of the dominance of the Euro-American civilization are coming to an end, Ruslan Grinberg believes. In this regard, China attracts special attention. How will he behave?

“We know that America can make very big mistakes, but we know how it behaves, but we don’t know how China will behave. This creates good conditions for Russia, which can become a balancing force in the world,” Grinberg says.

In conclusion, the speaker stated that right-liberal philosophy has gone out of fashion: Obama and Hollande, as well as other examples, confirm that the welfare state is returning.

There is a linear increase and repeated “flips” in the prices of oil and other global commodities, and the distance between these “flips” is shrinking. After analyzing the emergence of global financial crises, the "comb" of crises (Fig. 2), the Center's staff came to the conclusion that none of the existing mathematical models of random distribution explains their cyclicity.

Rice. 2."Comb" of significant financial and economic crises

Meanwhile, the inter-crisis interval is subject to regularity. For example, the staff of the Center built a three-phase model of the crisis and described a theoretical model of a controlled financial crisis, which, apparently, has been operating for 200 years.

Having built a generalized cycle of market conditions and tried to phase the cycle of world crises with it, the employees came to the conclusion that there is no convincing synchronism (Fig. 3).

Rice. 3. A generalized cycle of market conditions and world crises phasing with it. Lack of convincing synchronicity

Crises are not associated with cyclical development (at least, up to historical statistics). They are connected with acquisitiveness, with the interests of the group of beneficiaries, Stepan Sulakshin is convinced. The US Federal Reserve, which issues dollars, is a complex supranational structure woven into the political mechanism. The beneficiaries' club influences all countries of the world. The US itself is actually a hostage to this superstructure.

It exists due to the fact that material support is ten times lower than the monetary equivalent. The appreciation of the dollar in national and regional currencies gives beneficiaries the opportunity to receive more real benefits.

The fact that the Fed and the US are beneficiaries is proved by the magnitude of the damage caused by crises to the GDP of different countries (Fig. 4).

Rice. 4. Comparison of damage from global financial crises for different countries of the world in terms of GDP

At the end of the plenary session, the presentation of a collective monograph by the staff of the Center "Political Dimension of World Financial Crises" took place, in which a huge amount of factual material was analyzed and a controlled model of crisis phenomena was described in detail.

Rice. 5. Comparison of the damage from global financial crises for different countries of the world in terms of GDP, inflation, unemployment and investment

Alexander Chumakov: "Humanity is on the verge of a global war of all against all"

First Vice-President of the Russian Philosophical Society Alexander Chumakov made a presentation "Global World Governance: Realities and Prospects".

According to him, among the main tasks of modern humanity, the need to form global governance mechanisms is becoming central, since any social system in the absence of governance lives according to the laws of self-organization, where various elements of such a system seek to occupy a dominant (more advantageous) position by any means. An annihilating struggle logically ends the conflict unless one of the parties recognizes itself as defeated, with all the ensuing consequences. Starting to consider the problem, the speaker clarified the concepts that play a key role in solving the problem.

Since “the modern global world is immanently connected with globalization”, it is important to emphasize that there are serious discrepancies in the understanding of this phenomenon even in the expert community, not to mention the broad public consciousness. A. Chumakov understands globalization as "primarily an objective historical process, where the subjective factor sometimes plays a fundamental role, but is not the initial one." That is why, speaking of global management, it is necessary to correctly define the object and subject of management. At the same time, if everything is more or less clear with the object (this is the entire world community, which by the end of the 20th century formed a single system), then with the subject - the controlling principle - the situation is more complicated. Here, as was emphasized, it is important to get rid of the illusion that the world community can be controlled from any one center or through any one structure, organization, etc. In addition, it is necessary to distinguish between regulation and management, which involves clarifying these key concepts. Further, the dialectics of the correlation of these concepts was shown and examples of their work at the level of nation-states were given.

Since the task of organizing the management of a megasystem has become acute for humanity, the central question is how such management will become possible. In the speaker's opinion, here the historically justified principle of separation of powers into three branches should be taken as the basis: legislative, executive and judicial. And it is in this context that we can and should speak not only about the world government (as an executive power), but also about the totality of all the necessary structures that would represent the legislative power (the world parliament), the judiciary and everything else related to upbringing, education , encouragement and coercion at this level.

However, due to the colossal differentiation of the world community and the egoistic nature of man, the near future on the planet, according to A. Chumakov, will most likely be subordinated to the natural course of events, which is fraught with serious social conflicts and upheavals.

Further, the work of the conference continued within the framework of the poster section, where several dozen participants from different cities of Russia presented their work. As Stepan Sulakshin emphasized, the poster section of the conference is very extensive, and this is extremely important, since it is there that live, direct communication of the participants takes place. Fascinating and sometimes controversial reports could be listened to by visiting one of the four sections of the conference:

· “Humanity in megahistory and the universe: the meaning of the “project””;

· "History of the global world";

· "Transition processes in the world";

· Threats to the world.

So, the main global trends in the development of the world have been announced, options for action have been proposed. Summing up the results of the conference, one cannot, however, say that the participants of the plenary session and sections have always managed to achieve unanimity or at least stable mutual understanding. This only confirms how complex the problems of the global world are, which humanity will inevitably have to solve. their discussion is necessary, attempts to see the challenges and set goals are extremely important in themselves. Therefore, it is difficult to overestimate the significance of the conference, in which scientists and experts managed to "synchronize watches".

As a result of the conference, it is planned to publish a collection of works.

The modern world economy is a natural result of the development of production and the international division of labor, the involvement of an increasing number of countries in the world reproduction process. Throughout the 20th century there was an expansion and deepening of the international division of labor at all levels - from regional, interregional to global. The international division of labor is the specialization of countries in the production of certain goods that states trade with each other. Specialization is growing and cooperation is being strengthened. These processes outgrow national borders. International specialization and cooperation of production turn productive forces into global ones - countries become not just trading partners, but interconnected participants in the world reproduction process. In the course of deepening the processes of international specialization and cooperation of production, interdependence and interweaving of national economies, which form an integral system, increase.

Around the mid 1980s. the processes of internationalization of economic life, the processes of updating equipment and production technologies are accelerating, the newest branches of production are rapidly developing, the share of science-intensive products in the total volume of production is growing, informatics and communications are developing. There is an accelerated development of transport technologies. Now the share of transport in the created world gross product is about 6%, and in the world's fixed assets - about 20%. New transport technologists allowed to reduce transport tariffs by more than 10 times. The development of transport ensures the transportation of goods weighing about 10 tons per inhabitant of the Earth.

Informatization develops on the basis of the development of means of communication. Communications has become one of the rapidly developing sectors of the economy, accounting for about 20% of the world's gross domestic product. The growth rate of this industry is one of the highest compared to other industries. New technologies used in communications have made it possible to raise the speed of information transfer and its volumes to a previously inaccessible level. For example, fiber optic cables have a performance that is about 200 times better than copper cables; the developed countries of the world are already interconnected by these types of communication. Mobile communication has become widespread in many countries of the world. Russia also has a high rate of growth of mobile communication systems, although the coverage of the country's regions with mobile communication is very uneven. However, the tariffs of these systems are gradually decreasing, and they are even becoming competitors of wired telephony. Work is underway to create a unified world mobile communications based on about 60 stationary satellites. A world satellite communications system has already been established, which includes about a hundred communications satellites and a network of ground-based repeaters. The world satellite system is supplemented by national communication systems. Work is underway to create a global satellite computer network that would connect personal computer users via the Internet into a global system.

Achievements in the development and practical application of the latest technologies, along with deepening specialization and strengthening of cooperation ties, led to unprecedented growth in international trade - more than 6% per year from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s. The volume of international trade is now 6 trillion dollars. The exchange of services grew even faster. During the same period, their volume increased by 2,L times and is currently estimated at 1.5 trillion dollars. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) notes the dynamics of international trade: the annual growth rate of turnover is about 8%, which is more than twice the average annual growth in industrial production.

The acceleration of international trade relations was facilitated by the spread and unification of the rules of everyday behavior, a certain "standardization" of people's ideas about living conditions. These standards of life and behavior are spread both through world mass culture (movies, commercials) and through the consumption of standard products produced by global giant corporations: food products, clothing, shoes, household appliances, cars, etc. New products are necessarily widely advertised, conquering almost the whole world. Advertising costs occupy an increasing share in the price of goods, but the costs of advertising make it possible to conquer new sales markets, bringing huge incomes to manufacturers. Practically the whole world uses uniform marketing technologies, uniform methods of service, marketing technologies. In the structure of international trade, there is a progressive increase in the service sector (transport, tourism, etc.). In the late 1990s, according to the IMF, services accounted for about a third of world exports. The growth of international trade in goods and services is facilitated by the dissemination of information about them via the Internet. According to experts, now more than half of the enterprises in the world find profitable partners by offering their products on the Internet. The distribution of information about goods and services via the Internet increases the profitability of a business, as it is the most economical way to inform potential buyers. Moreover, the Internet allows you to get feedback, transmit the most complex and detailed information. The Internet complements and improves traditional trade and transport technologies and makes it possible to form world prices for basic goods and services on stock exchanges and in electronic trading systems. World prices react very sensitively to various events in the economy and politics of the leading countries of the world.

The high growth rate of international exchange of goods, services, information, capital indicates that the interdependence of national economies has significantly increased, and the growth rate of international exchange is far ahead of the economic growth of even the most dynamically developing countries. This means that the world economy is acquiring not just trade, but to a greater extent industrial integrity. The processes of increasing the level of interaction, the interdependence of national economies, the unprecedented increase and acceleration of trade in goods and services, the exchange of capital and the strengthening of transnational capital, the formation of a single financial market, the emergence of fundamentally new network computer technologies, the formation and strengthening of transnational banks and corporations are called the globalization of the world economy.

Globalization concerns, perhaps, all the processes taking place in the economy, ideology, law, scientific activity, and ecology. The processes of convergence and interpenetration of national economies (convergence) are supported and reinforced by the process of convergence of laws, regulations, and possibly informal social institutions (rules of conduct, traditions, etc.). The United Nations, international economic and financial organizations (International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, World Bank, etc.) have a great influence on the process of globalization. Television and the Internet also have a powerful impact on the life and consciousness of people, creating, sometimes imperceptibly, common stereotypes of thinking and behavior. The mass media make any information known almost instantly, presenting it in one way or another, form a certain attitude to events, known people, political figures. Thus, formal and informal social institutions, "armed" with the latest modern technologies, have turned into a global control, consciousness-forming element.

Globalization covers the most important processes in the world economy. One of the sides of the process of globalization in the economy is the globalization of finance, which has also become possible thanks to the latest technologies in the field of communications and communication. Our planet is covered with an electronic network that allows you to conduct financial transactions in real time, move the world's financial flows. Thus, daily interbank transactions have now reached $ 2 trillion, which is about 3 times the level of 1987. In the world, the weekly financial turnover is approximately equal to the annual US domestic product, the turnover in less than a month is comparable to the world product in a year. It can also be noted that financial transactions carried out in various forms (loans, credits, foreign exchange transactions, transactions with securities, etc.) exceed world trade by 50 times in volume. A significant place in the financial market was occupied by international electronic currency markets, where deals are made in the amount of about 1.5 trillion dollars a day.

The financial market, thanks to network computer and information technologies, has become the most powerful element of globalization, influencing the world economy. In the process of globalization, there is also a globalization of capital accumulation. This process was initiated by savings carried out by households, firms and the state. These financial resources are accumulated in the banking system, insurance companies, pension and investment funds, which invest them. The consolidation of property and its global redistribution is complemented by investment mobilized from the Eurodollar markets that arose in the 1960s.

The main factor in the globalization of reproductive processes has become transnational corporations (TNK) and transnational banks (TNB). Most modern international corporations take the form of TNCs, which are companies in which the head part belongs to one country, and branches and direct portfolio investments are carried out in many countries of the world. Currently, there are about 82,000 TNCs and 810,000 of their foreign affiliates in the world economy. TNCs control about half of world trade and 67% of foreign trade. They control 80% of all world patents and licenses for the latest equipment and technology. TNCs almost completely control the world market for most (from 75 to 90%) agricultural products (coffee, wheat, corn, tobacco, tea, bananas, etc.). In economically developed countries, TNCs carry out the bulk of the country's export supplies. In TNCs, 70% of international payments for loans and licenses go between the parent organization of the corporation and its foreign affiliates. Among the 100 largest TNCs, the leading role belongs to the American ones: the share of American TNCs in the total assets of 100 TNCs is 18%, English and French 15 each, German - 13, Japanese - 9%.

In the context of globalization, competition between TNCs is intensifying. TNCs from developing and transition economies are pushing TNCs from economically developed countries. In the market of electrical and electronic equipment, their share is 14%, in metallurgy - 12%, telecommunications - 11%, oil production and processing - 9%. But still dominated by North American. The total volume of their foreign assets is twice that of Japan. Competition between the largest corporations leads not only to mergers and mutual acquisitions of previously independent companies. Recently, completely new transnational structures have been formed. Mergers and acquisitions cover the newest sectors of the economy: communications and telecommunications (for example, the merger of the largest "Internet" company "America Online" and the telecommunications company "Time Warner"). Significant changes are also taking place in traditional industries, where there is also a global redistribution of property.

Originating in the post-war period, deepening process of regional economic integration, which is one of the modern forms of internationalization of international economic life. Two or more states participate in economic integration. The countries participating in economic integration carry out a coordinated policy on the interaction and interpenetration of national reproduction processes. The participants in the integration process form mutual stable ties not only in the form of trade, but also strong technical, technological and financial interaction. The highest stage of the integration process will be the creation of a single economic body pursuing a single policy. Currently, the integration process is taking place on all continents. Trade and economic blocs of varying strength and degree of maturity emerged. About 90 regional trade and economic agreements and arrangements are now functioning with varying efficiency. Integration participants combine their efforts in production and financial cooperation, which gives them the opportunity to reduce production costs and pursue a single economic policy in the world market.

Fundamentals of the development of the political system of Russia as a sovereign democracy.

The main trends in the development of the modern world and Russia

Topic 1

Introduction

Current geopolitical and economic trends

Moscow, 2010

The main trends in the development of the modern world and Russia. 5

World political system. 24

Formation and development of the political system of Russia in the late XX - early XXI century. 41

World economic system. 56

World socio-demographic trends. 84

Third sector: Russia and global trends. 101

World culture. 119

World information and communication space. 137

Russia of the 21st century: development strategy. 150

The modern world is changing before our eyes. This can be treated differently. You can pretend like an ostrich that nothing is happening. You can fight against changes, strive to isolate yourself from them. It is possible, "riding the wave" of changes, to try to get ahead.

This course is for those who choose the latter strategy.

Every young person in our country constantly makes a choice, determining his life path.

The purpose of the course is to create an integral system of ideas about the role and place of Russia in the system of international relations

The course generates the following views:

On the main trends in world development,

Competitive struggle between the leading world powers in the geopolitical, geo-economic, socio-demographic and cultural-civilizational space,

Strengths and weaknesses of Russia in the world system,

External threats and challenges,

Competitive advantages of Russia,

Possible scenarios and prospects for its development.

The developers of this course will be sincerely happy if its listener ends up asking himself a simple question: how do I see my future in Russia, given all that I have learned?

As a result of studying this topic, you will get acquainted with:

With the main political, economic, socio-demographic cultural and civilizational trends that characterize world development;

- the main contradictions and conflicts of world development;

- the main spaces of global competition;

Russia's position in the global economic, political, socio-demographic and cultural competition, the level of its competitiveness;

- the basic principles of the functioning of the political system of Russia;

- the role of the president, parliament, government and judiciary in the political system of Russia;

The modern world is a world of global competition that takes place in various forms. It is necessary to distinguish four main areas of competition: geopolitical, geoeconomic, socio-demographic and geocultural. Every country that claims to be a great power must be competitive in every area. The leading trend in the development of international relations is the strengthening of the economic component of competition in the context of globalization, which is expressed primarily in the rivalry of national economies.

on the topic: "The main trends in the development of the modern world and its state in
paradigm of the general theory of war"
at the round table
"Problems of war and peace in the modern era: theory and practice of the issue"
November 22, 2011, Moscow, Institute of Economics RAS

Dear colleagues!

1. The World Today: A General Assessment of the Strategic Environment

In assessing the strategic situation, we will deliberately leave behind such basic components of modern geopolitical analysis as an assessment of the history, geography, economy and current policy of the country.

At the same time, as the main areas of analysis, we included the civilizational aspect of the existence of Russia and the world.

1.1 The content of the modern era and the main civilizational factors of the modern existence of mankind

An analysis of the main world events of the end of the last and the beginning of this century allows us to identify and assert that the world and Russia exist in fundamentally new conditions that allow us to define our era as an era of change, as an era of planetary vulnerability and the emergence of new forms and conditions for the existence of mankind.

These new conditions for the existence of Russia as a special civilization, superethnos and state, are manifested in a number of new factors of planetary existence, in many ways conditioned by the self-destruction of the Soviet-Russian great power in all its geopolitical, geo-economic, ideological and all other spiritual incarnations, as an aggregate Russian and Soviet geopolitical project, and as a potentially equal and, unambiguously, one-rank aggregate West, civilizational phenomenon and an independent planetary force that tried to shape its existence on the basis of its own basic values collective existence, and independently determining the goals of its own civilizational existence.

The collapse of the USSR was the largest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century and the largest national tragedy that gave impetus to the development of new trends in planetary development and the national development of Russia.

We believe, the main content of the modern era is that:

• the further future of mankind and the main mechanism of planetary development will be determined by the struggle of civilizations as the main subjects of geopolitics, in the process of changing the technological way of being by Mankind;
• these new civilizational factors in the development of mankind already give rise and will give rise to new contradictions and even new classes of contradictions of modern human existence, and they, in turn, give rise to a new dialectic of its development;
• a new dialectic of human development will be formed in the most difficult conditions of changing the ideological and technical paradigms of its existence, the main role in the formation and consolidation of which will be played by war and military force.

1.2 Basic causes of war

We believe that a feature of the current state of relations between the leading civilizations of the world is their growing mutual incompatibility, associated with the general incompatibility of their value foundations, and which is clearly manifested in the growth of civilizational tensions in almost all points of their contact.

The mutual non-complimentarity of the main civilizations - Russian Orthodox, Islamic, Chinese, and Western - tends to aggravate their relations from competition up to direct confrontation. The reason for the growth of civilizational antagonism is the unprecedented, aggressive and forceful expansion into the world of values ​​of Western civilization led by the United States.

An analysis of the modern development of world civilizations shows that, solved by the technologies of geopolitics and geoeconomics, the most important task of the West, the main content of which is to ensure one's own survival and development at the expense of the rest of the world with the ultimate goal of establishing one's own permanent world domination, can only be realized when the West:

First of all, will be able to maintain indefinitely the state of "controlled turmoil" in the rest of the world;

Secondly, when this permanent turmoil will not concern at all or minimally its national territories, and thirdly, when these territories and interests will be unambiguously and reliably protected.

Supertasks of the "rest of the world" various. They are determined both by the historical past and national genetics of peoples, and by the current level and world status of states. Practically the only point uniting the interests of the “rest of the world” is the rejection of the “prospects prescribed for them”, as well as the rejection of the “values” that are forcibly introduced, alien to their genetics, as undermining the foundations of their historical existence and the desire for the survival of their own peoples. It seems to us that this can become the main message of Russia's own geopolitical strategic game.

As an analysis of the current state and a forecast of possible prospects for the development of the world community shows, this new global collision of the "struggle of super-tasks" may become in the near future the main challenge to the survival of mankind.

Now it manifests itself on the one hand - as an artificially heated, seemingly easy and accessible "sweet life, like theirs", initiating the pursuit of nations for the specter of freedom and prosperity; and on the other hand, the fierce resistance of the national and religious elites to this expansion, realizing that the "commercial system" implanted in them by the West, in the final analysis, is the "Trojan horse" that is "thrown" to them by their common enemy.

This led to the formation, on almost all continents, of zones of civilizational tensions, and the "clash of civilizations" is already manifesting itself in a general increase in violence in interethnic (interethnic) relations, in violent interethnic and religious conflicts, which, in the future, can lead to suicidal civilizational wars.

Fifth, the coming "era of change" will not only be an era of planetary instability, but will inevitably become an era of war as a direct armed struggle.

That is why the issue of war and peace in the national strategy as a science, practice and art of government is the main one today.

1.4 Basic prerequisites for war as an armed struggle

Historical background and evidence

An analysis of the history of the last hundred years allows us to conclude that the West solved the problems of its own survival and development at the expense of the rest of the world, but mainly at the expense of Russia.

In 1910-1920- due to militarization, the First World War, resources and energy of the collapse of the Russian Empire.

The crisis of the 30s of the last century- due to militarization and the formation of the prerequisites for the Second World War (democratic cultivation of Nazi Germany, assistance from the USSR)

The Second World War- due to militarization, resources and the historical future of the USSR

The crisis of the 90s of the last century- due to militarization and the collapse of the USSR

The modern crisis of the capitalist system and the US itself- it is planned to overcome at the expense of the collapse and resources of modern Russia.

Generally.

We see that the only way to resolve their systemic crises, the West and its leader the United States has always carried out through the war and the formation of the necessary architecture of the post-war structure based on its results, with its undoubted leadership.

Current situation

We are convinced that the current strategic situation can be defined as preparation for a world war.

We believe that this preparation is being carried out by the USA, the leader of Western civilization.

The purpose of the war- Preservation of oneself as the only and uncontested world leader, ready to prove by force its superiority and the right to use the resources of the rest of the world.

In the interests of preparing for war, the United States is taking the following strategic actions.

1. Strengthening your own combat power- annual six hundred billion state military budgets, the creation of a national missile defense system and ensuring the security of the country's national territory.
2. Preparation of theaters of war- creation of the main bases of military-political control of the world: in space; in the sea; In Europe - (Kosovo); in Asia - Afghanistan.
3. Weakening strategic opponents
   The rest of the world- power expansion of their civilizational beginnings; involvement of the whole world in solving the problems of their own survival and at its expense;
   Europe- the transfer of their own economic crises and national crises to Europe and the world; encouraging the formation of bridgeheads for other civilizations; practical liquidation of the national armed forces.
   China- limited access to the resources of Africa, Asia and Russia; creation of springboards for "democracy and radical Islam".
   Russia- creation of conditions for self-destruction of the country; deception of public opinion by "reset"; "" buying up the national elite at the root and the targeted destruction of national science, culture, education and the capacity of the main institutions of the state, the depopulation of the country; practical liquidation of the country's national defense system.
4. Creation of a system of complete control space, air, sea and information and interactive spaces.

Thus, if the main event and the main global social catastrophe of the 20th century was the self-destruction and collapse of the USSR, then it may turn out that the main catastrophe of global significance in the 21st century may become a new world war.

This means that the war of the West against Russia has never been interrupted, its armed form is literally "on the nose", but Russia is not ready for this war either organizationally or mentally, neither economically, nor in terms of military proper.

All this requires its assessment and adequate strategic decisions, which the political leaders of Russia are not able to make, since neither their own mentality, nor public opinion, nor the passivity of the nation, nor the lack of a modern and necessary theory of state administration, as well as the lack of national strategy as such, complete professional incompetence and their own personal greed.

2. About the theory of war as new knowledge and new
nation existence paradigm

In the modern era, one of the most important problems of mankind is war, which, as a phenomenon and part of the existence of society, accompanies a person throughout his history.

Unfortunately, this significant factor in the life of mankind and Russia is not fully appreciated, since the understanding and approaches to war were historically formed only from the practice of armed struggle, which, in our opinion, is already insufficient.

We are convinced that the absence of a modern theory of war hinders the development of Russia and makes its foreign and domestic policy inflexible, and state activity inefficient and uncompetitive.

One of the main objectives of this work is an attempt to give harmony and scientific solidity to the outstanding achievements of military thought, scattered today over the centuries and the works of great commanders, strategists, politicians and scientists, and to create on this basis a relatively complete, but certainly not complete, modern theory. war.

The need to create a modern theory of war is caused by:

• the absence of a developed, coherent, relatively complete and complete theory of war (the theory of war is not included in the list of military theories as such and is not taught as a subject of study even in the system of professional military education) and the need to create its new universal conceptual apparatus;
• new trends in the development of mankind and significant new factors of its modern existence;
• current military events of our time, requiring a new understanding;
• the need to introduce a new scientific apparatus of the theory of wars into the political and military practice of states;
• the need to create on the basis of the theory of war an independent theory of national strategy and the theory of state administration;
• the need to identify new trends in political life and the development of military affairs, and their clarification in the interpretation of the concepts of the new theory of war;
• the need to develop such a theory of war that could be effectively used not only by nations disposed to expand their interests, influence and values, but also by peoples who are satisfied with their state borders and worry mainly about security and the preservation of their way of life;
• the need to create an integral theory of wars, which would be built not on the absolutization of any opportunistic postulates of a nation that is considered “strong” today, but on a non-opportunistic theory built on a new common sense, and in this respect interesting and useful to all objects of society, as well as the theory, which would be a solid basis for the further development of military affairs within the framework of the positive development of mankind;
• the need to summarize the practical and scientific experience of mankind in the field of wars, as well as the extreme need to formulate and introduce it into modern scientific life;
• a certain impasse of military thought, associated with the insufficiency of the existing scientific apparatus of this most important sphere of human activity, as well as with the obsolescence or revealed inaccuracy of its important postulates and parts;
• the extremely high activity of a large mass of modern military experts and writers, arbitrarily interpreting the military sphere of human activity, which they poorly understand, whose work introduces additional disorganization (vulgarization and simplification) into the understanding (rethinking) of military affairs as a whole;
• the need to introduce a new theory of war into scientific circulation, the educational process of institutions of higher education, as well as into the political and military practice of modern Russia.

It seems that the solution of precisely these problems can form the main directions of research and development of the modern theory of war.

An analysis of the history of Mankind allows us to draw several conclusions about history itself, which, as you know, "does not teach anything", but bitterly punishes for not learning its lessons, and which always turns out to be the absolute truth.

It seems to us that these conclusions will not cause misunderstanding or rejection among our readers, since they are made both on the basis of the experience of human existence and relate to its most general aspects, and from the professional experience of a military man and a strategist.

It seems to us that these conclusions can be formulated in several axiomatic statements.

First. History really has its own laws, like the laws of the development of human society, which are universal in nature and are valid for all parts and levels of society.

Second. The basic laws of development will determine the ultimate superiority of society's morality over its strength.

The third. The laws of history as the laws of the development of society are most fully reflected in the laws of war, which, as a process of struggle for existence, constitutes the main and objective outline of the development of mankind.

Fourth. The laws of war are valid for the entire sphere of existence of society at any level and can serve as a canvas for the formation of the theory and practice of government as a system, structure and level of society, capable of developing these laws, introducing them into state practice and using their fruits.

Fifth. The level of knowledge (foresight, guessing) of the laws of war by national elites, as well as their compliance with the adopted national strategy, directly determines the model of the historical behavior and national existence of the nation and its ultimate historical success.

Probably, the formulation of theses of such a plan can still be continued, but today it can already be firmly asserted that the mistakes of the great powers in choosing a national strategy as a model of historical behavior and national existence, in the final analysis, always ended in their national (geopolitical) collapse.

Depending on the period of its historical existence, this process, that is, the process of national collapse as a result of the mistakes of its own national strategy or even its general moral and strategic depravity, took from several decades to several centuries.

An example of the correctness of this statement is the history of mankind itself, in which the emergence, development and death of all empires - from the Empire of Alexander the Great to the collapse of Nazi Germany and the USSR was predetermined by the mistakes of their national strategies.

Today, such a striking example is the United States, which is also approaching its own national collapse, due to the moral depravity and mistakes of its own national strategy.

This means that there is an objective law of History - ignorance of the laws of war and strategy, as well as their arbitrary interpretation and application, always leads the nation to collapse, and (as in the criminal code) - do not relieve national elites, governments and societies from their responsibility for the historical fate own nations and peoples.

True, such an understanding of the laws of history and war has become possible only in the last 50-60 years, since only now has national military thought and strategy risen to such heights.

Unfortunately, the national strategy, as a rule, is formed not by those representatives of the national elites who "rose to the heights", but by those who, guided by the "instinct of power", rely on the fact that in "their time" they are not threatened with collapse and they will be able to to survive in it, which is just another example of a delusion that only exacerbates strategic mistakes and worsens their nations' chances of survival and a decent history.

At the same time, even a superficial analysis of the existence of mankind in relation to the main issues of the survival of our earthly civilization, namely the issues of war and peace, puts modern political science and military thought in a dead end, since these problems do not find their systemic explanation today, and, moreover, do not have a visible intelligible solution.

These problems are increasingly obscured by the abundance of new trends in the development of mankind, despite the fact that there are practically no positive and clear development trends (or they have not been identified as such), but almost each of them carries a direct Challenge to the existence of mankind or the grain of the end of its modern history.

Today, political science and military thought is anxiously and actively rushing about in search of explainable (or at least acceptable) forecasts and pictures of the future, and is trying to see the fabric of times, but all these searches are not yet reduced to at least somehow understandable model.

We explain this fact not so much by the complexity of the problem as by the absence of a systematic basis for searches.

The main thing here, in our opinion, is the need for other approaches to the problem, topics, theory and practice of the fundamental concepts of human civilization, the concepts of "war" and "peace", as well as understanding the new relationship between war (and armed struggle, which is not the same g) and rapidly changing human society.

In this regard, a gratifying fact is only the unconditional interest of researchers in the topic and the concept of "civilization".

It seems to us that the civilizational approach to the analysis of the modern existence of mankind is absolutely correct, since, in our opinion, it is civilizations that are only now beginning to realize themselves as the basis of all planetary interactions that will determine the development itself and all collisions of the immediate and future history. humanity.

Modern researchers today are vigorously discussing the creative heritage of Karl von Clausewitz, sometimes agreeing with his interpretations of the war (for example, General of the Army M. A. Gareev in Russia), then protesting against them even more violently and with arguments (for example, the Israeli historian Martin van Creveld). but the strangest thing about this process is that none of them offers anything fundamentally new.

At the same time, all experts for some reason agree that modern war has a different nature than war in the time of Clausewitz.

In our opinion, this is a fundamental mistake, since the nature of war is violence, and this is its absolute constant, which always remains unchanged, at the same time, the very content of the war, its goals, criteria, technologies of conduct and operational means have radically changed. .

Fundamentals of the General Theory of War

The author proceeds from the assumption that the theory of war is based on the essence of several basic postulates, which in turn are based on the basic laws of human existence and its own logic of axiomatic statements.

2.1 Basic postulates of the theory of war

We proceed from the assumption that the theory of war is based on the essence of several basic postulates, which in turn are based on the basic laws of human existence and its own logic of axiomatic statements.

The presented postulates of the theory of war follow from the logic of the laws of being - the historical development of society, and will be further disclosed in detail in the course of work.

2.1.1 The first postulate of the theory of war

The first postulate of the theory of war - A new state of society is formed by war.

It has the form (consists of) the following series of statements.

1. The basic law of the development of human society is the law of the complication of its structure. The action of this law leads to the fact that the existence of mankind becomes more complicated, and its social time (the degree of complication of the existence of society per unit of time) accelerates.

2. The development of society takes place, and the manifestation of the basic law of its development is formed as a result of the actions of the laws of "competition" and "cooperation", the interaction of which forms a new, different and for each time - the current state of society.

3. The formation of a new state of society occurs through the war of its main subjects at the levels: personality, peoples, nations, great and small powers, and civilizations.

4. War not only solves the problems of society, but with the help of war, society controls its own world and determines the direction of its development.

5. Each new and relatively long-term state of society is determined and fixed by the results of the victory of its individual parts in the war.

6. Victory in the war, as a fixed manifestation of a new social (political) reality, is the main factor certifying the change, development and current state of human society.

2.1.2 The second postulate of the theory of war

The second postulate of war defines the essence of the concepts "war" and "peace".

"War" and "Peace" - there are only stages (cycles and rhythms) of the existence of mankind and society at any level.

"Peace" is a way of fulfilling the roles of the subjects of society, formed by the last war, it forms the potential for change.

"War" is a way of structuring, that is, a way of transitioning to a new model of the architecture of society (the world) and managing it, a way of redistributing the old and obtaining (conquering) new places, roles and statuses of the subjects of society (states).

War redistributes the roles and statuses of its participants, it realizes the potential for change, it redistributes it.

"War" is the same natural state of civilization as "peace", as it is only a phase of the cycle of its existence, a certain result of the world and a procedure (method) for structuring the world and the formation of its new architecture, changing existing paradigms, roles and resources, including the resources of global (regional, state) management.

War is a social process characterized by a purposeful struggle of the subjects of society (geopolitics) for the approval of their victorious part in a new role and status (for confirmation of the old ones), and for the possibility of their formation of a new structure and picture of the world and its subsequent management.

2.1.3 The third postulate of the theory of war

The third postulate of the theory of war defines the basis of the dialectic of the conflict basis of human existence, as the basis and basic causes of war.

As a hypothesis, we accept the following axiomatic statements.

First, at the heart of any war lies the desire of people and their communities:

• to survival;
• to improve the quality of one's own life;
• to the satisfaction of their own individual and group vanity.

Secondly, the essence of any war is violence.

Thirdly, the war is not limited to the actual armed struggle.

2.1.4 The fourth postulate of the theory of war

The fourth postulate of the theory of war - The logic of being gives rise to and ensures war as a phenomenon of the existence of society.

The postulate concerns the formation of the prerequisites for war as a social phenomenon, its causes, reasons, conditions, and so on, and is based on the logic of the statements of its logical series.

1. The world develops through the desires, thoughts of people and their work.

2. Violence is a desire brought to an absolute and a way of its realization.

3. Desires are realized by violence, the embodiment of which is war.

4. Individual desires, like the desires of a unit, are socially insignificant.

But the organized desire of many social units - nations and

states, this is the huge force that generates:

• the need for organized violence (for the realization of desire);
• the need to control it (this is how the state appeared);
• the ability to manage this organized violence in the interests of those who plot and wage these wars.

5. With regard to the theme of the theory of war:

"desires"- materialize in finding the causes and pretexts for war, substantiate its conflict basis;

"thoughts"- form the ideological and theoretical foundations of war, expressed in the development of the principles and theory of war, the determination of its most successful strategies and methods of preparing and waging war;

"work"- ensures the creation of material prerequisites and means of war, determines its technological level.

2.1.5 Fifth postulate of the theory of war

The fifth postulate defines war based on its main content.

The essence and content of war throughout the history of mankind have not changed, and they are still violence (coercion).

Violence is always social and political in nature.

War is a process of purposeful organized violence carried out by some subjects of society against other subjects of society, in order to change in their favor the foundations of their own existence at the expense of the resources and capabilities of the opposite side.

In the war, all (any) and extreme measures of violence (coercion) are used, from changing the national psychology, up to the threat of destroying the enemy and his physical elimination.

Any purposeful violent (forced) change in the state of society, with the aim of using these changes to the detriment of itself and in the interests of the organizer and initiator of violence, is military action.

An organized, purposeful, direct or indirect implementation of measures of violence (coercion) into practice and into life by one subject of society against another subject, carried out on an initiative and unannounced basis, is aggression.

Determining the criteria and indicators of aggression in various spheres of the existence of society is an urgent task of the state, military and other types of political sciences.

2.1.6 The sixth postulate of the theory of war

The sixth postulate of the theory of war determines the general trends in the dialectic of the development of military affairs.

1. Analysis of the growth of violence reveals the general trend of its dialectic:

• the time for the realization of desire is condensed;
• the densification of the time for the realization of desire is carried out by war as organized violence;
• the densification of social time leads to an increase in the scale of violence, to the use of more and more modern means of violence and to the development of more and more hidden forms of its implementation, that is, to the emergence of new means and types of wars;
• the role and importance of military affairs on a national and international scale is growing to the level of the main cause of peoples and nations.

2. The need for a quick victory and the short duration of the armed phase of the war, the achievement of the goals pursued by the strategy without destroying the infrastructure (resource) wealth as a prize of the war and its additional (desired, desired) resource, as the strategic effects of the war, led to:

• to the need for a technological separation of the "strong" from the rest;
• to ensure the security of their national territories and the transfer of hostilities to the territories and spaces of enemy states;
• to the transfer of military operations from the territories and spaces of states into human consciousness;
• to the creation of the foundations and conditions for guaranteed victory, as the conquest of the future.

2.1.7 The seventh postulate of the theory of war

The seventh postulate defines war in its highest form as a war of meanings

The highest form of war is the war of civilizations, it is a war of meanings.

In the war of meanings, it is not the side that wins the space, or even comes to control, that wins, but the one that captures the future.

In order to win the war of meanings, one must have and carry within oneself one's own Meaning.

Capturing the future can be done by methods- a solid and self-sufficient self-sufficiency of the nation in Truth and its own being, in the conviction that "God is not in power, but in Truth!", as well as expansion into the world of its civilizational beginnings by personal example and the feat of its own improvement and the historical success of the nation .

2.1.8 The eighth postulate of the theory of war

The eighth postulate of the theory of war defines culture as the main factor of Victory or defeat in the War of Meanings.

Russia as a civilization has five foundations

1. Faith - Orthodoxy
2. People - Russian
3. Russian language
4. State - Russia
5. Semantic matrix - Russian culture

Russian culture - is:

• the basis of national identification and Russian civilization;
• basis of the nation's strategic matrix;
• the main factor of Victory or defeat in the War of Meanings, since in such a war the one who loses his culture loses.

For victory in the war of meanings, the ability of a nation (its creative minority and power) is important - to have an anticipatory reaction not to the event itself, and not even to the Challenge itself, but to its probability.

2.1.9 The ninth postulate of the theory of war

The ninth postulate defines the basic logic of the hierarchies of nation building and war management, which are carried out in the basic logic of the following statements.

• national idea, based on the ideals, historical values ​​and shrines of the nation, defines its Mission and Purpose as the Meanings of the existence of the nation in the history of mankind and forms a national ideology as a philosophy of national existence and a system of basic goals of the national strategy.
• Ideology as Philosophy of National Being- defines the field of state roles and national preferences, and also formulates the main ones as common basic goals, development paradigms.
• Geopolitics- reveals their interconnections and spatial and political correlation, and together with the strategy - reveals the theaters of war and the composition of possible opponents and allies.
• Strategy- indicates the directions and goals of the war, and also determines the basic algorithm of the state's actions and manages the war.
• Politics- translates this algorithm into the ideology of the current existence of the nation and the practical activities of state institutions, into the budget process, designing the future, as the implementation of the goals of the national strategy, and the implementation of these projects;
• Army- reinforces these actions with its presence, readiness and determination, and, if necessary, realizes the right of the state (its claims) to a new role in the world, by achieving victory in the actual armed struggle and keeps it (the state) in its new status.

It is this hierarchy of concepts that seems to us extremely important, since there is an (in our opinion, erroneous) idea that politics (and politicians) develops and manages strategy, while politics only pursues the goals of the national strategy, realizing them in its own current real state practice.

2.1.10 Tenth postulate of the theory of war

The tenth postulate of the theory of war defines "mobilization" as the basic condition and specificity of war.

In the theory of war, "mobilization" is understood as the ability of a nation to the utmost concentration of efforts in all spheres of its existence, in order to achieve victory in the war and ensure its own survival and development.

War can neither be prepared nor waged without the mobilization of all the resources of the nation.

A nation's capacity for war and victory in it is largely determined by its ability and readiness for great mobilization efforts, historical patience with the inevitable difficulties of war in the name of ultimate victory.

2.1.11 Eleventh postulate of the theory of war

Behind all and any manifestations of war there is always armed force, as the last and most weighty argument of the national power and determination of the nation, the basis of its viability and sovereignty.

2.1.12 The twelfth postulate of the theory of war

Knowledge is always Strength, Power and Future.

In modern warfare, the right strategy always takes precedence over its technologies, and strategic military thought gains undeniable superiority over the technological perfection of weapons.

2.1.13 The thirteenth postulate of the theory of war

The theory of war is the philosophical, methodological and organizational basis of the National Strategy of Russia, as a theory, practice and art of government.

2.2 Categories "war" and "peace" in the interpretations of the author

It seems to us that the search for answers to the main questions of the theory of war, which determine the essence of the theory itself, should be based on approaches of a general philosophical nature, that is, those very approaches that classical and modern and military science have not developed.

In formulating his own interpretations of the concepts of "war" and "peace", the author proceeded from the obvious facts and observations of contemporary political history.

Such a main observation is the facts that speak about and prove the fact that - "war", it is not then (not only then) when "airplanes are bombed, tanks fire, explosions thunder, soldiers kill each other, troops of the parties, sowing death and destruction "move the front line" until the victory of one side, and so on, today this is all completely different

Modern warfare is like radiation: everyone knows about it, and everyone is afraid of it; but no one feels it, it is not visible and not tangible, and it is as if practically non-existent; but the war goes on, because - people are dying, states are collapsing and peoples are disappearing.

First of all, those states and peoples disappear from the history of mankind, which, even dying in it, stubbornly do not notice or do not want to notice the war being waged against them. That is how the USSR perished, and Russia can still perish.

In political everyday life and modern political thought, the terms "hot war" and "cold war" are widely used, which reflects the current common understanding of the problem, while "hot war" is understood as a war waged by armed means proper, and "cold war" - as a war waged by non-military means, but this does not fully reflect the specifics of the war.

The general theory of war considers war in its unity, in which its "hot" and cold phases can take place.

Answers to these questions "what is war?" and "what is the world?", formulated on the basis of the conducted research, is proposed to be preceded by the following the basic theses of the proposed working hypothesis, based on a number of axiomatic statements.

The being of a civilization is its natural development in the rhythm of "war - peace", moreover, each of the phases of this "great rhythm" has its own philosophy and its own specifics, but at the same time, a single object of application is its own being.

The main task of human civilization is the survival of mankind as a species and its development.

The main task of the state is its survival and development as a subject and part of civilization.

If the survival and development of civilization implies, first of all, the search for new resources that ensure its viability and better management of their distribution, then the survival and development of states, in addition, implies the search and finding of such a place, role and status in the system of states and in civilization, which would provide better conditions for its survival and relatively sovereign development.

Thus, the following logical chain or sequence of higher certainties of any state, and even more so of a power, is built:

• survival depends on viability;
• viability - from the availability of resources (access to them) and the quality of government, and resource flows;
• all of the above directly depends on the place, role and status of the state in the world, in the region and in civilization.

The dialectical connection of all these components is also quite obvious in the reverse order of their pronunciation.

An important place in this regard is occupied by the question itself: "what does the world do as a state of civilization or state in time without war?" (or "what is peacetime forging?"), as a phase of the civilizational cycle "peace - war", and the answers to it.

The results of the conducted research allow us to define the state of the world (peacetime) as a state of accumulation of national, state, civilizational and all other potentials (similar to the "charging cycle"), during which prerequisites are created for improving the quality of the state and, almost simultaneously, searching for a new (other) role of the state in the system of existing world relations and the formation of a claim to improve the place, role and status.

Since these places, roles and statuses of states are already quite rigidly determined by the existing, that is, once formed, world order, and as a rule, there are not many who want to radically change it, and if they exist, then their potential is compared with the previous winners, which control the world, as a rule, is insignificant, then its new appearance and architecture of the world can be changed (according to the experience of the previous development of civilization) only by "overcoming" this "unwillingness", by transferring the state of peace into a state of war and through it.

This means that the world forms the potential for change and this is its work and its "business", and the war realizes the potential for change, redistributes it and this is its "work" and its "business".

Thus, the whole logic of such reasoning allows us to propose the following definition:

"war" is part of the civilizational rhythm, or historically the main rhythm of the existence of human society "peace - war" and one of the forms of civilizational existence:

"war", is a way of structuring, that is, a way of transition to a new model of world architecture and its management, a way of redistributing the old and obtaining (conquering) new places, roles and statuses of states.

With this level of generalization, it seems not fundamental, both the spheres themselves, the scale, methods, methods and technologies of wars, and the arsenal of means involved in them, since any change in the established order and roles of any subjects of any relationship is war, and armed struggle, it is only its particular manifestation and its specific form.

Thus, war is the same natural state of civilization as the world, since it is only a phase of the cycle of its existence, a certain result of the world and the procedure for the formation of its new architecture, changing existing paradigms, roles and resources, including the resources of the global (regional , government controlled.

War is not an alternative to peace, it is a process of realizing its potential.

War and peace - there are only stages of being of the subjects of human society (for example, humanity and powers) that exist in the paradigm (basic scheme) of world-military existence.

At the same time, war itself, as a struggle for a new role and status, is a time that exceeds the time of peace, although peace itself (peacetime) is longer than the time of actual armed struggle (which is only one of the forms of military operations), and in its essence, there is only a "respite phase" in the war.

If we consider that progress itself is the result of a capable management of a system (civilization, state), then war is either bad management (war out of desperation), or it is a correction of management shortcomings, or it is the imposition and consolidation of roles as part of management. In any case, war acts as a process and form of self-government of the system, as its corrector.

Obviously, civilization, like any other metasystem, can exist more or less comfortably only in a state of relative dynamic equilibrium. It is also obvious that the accumulation of "potential for change" in peacetime cannot but lead to certain "disagreements" in it and cause its imbalance.

Therefore, an important goal of the war is to find and establish a qualitatively new equilibrium state of the system or introduce certainty into the mechanisms (architecture) of its functioning, or eliminate destabilizing factors.

The basic goals of war, by definition, must coincide with the national interests of the power and be strategically and morally feasible for it.

The aims of war should not be so much just(including in connection with the means of waging it, as well as in connection with the obvious subjectivity of the very concept of "justice", although the obvious justice of a war is always the basis for agreement in society about its waging), how much is appropriate and in general (or look like) a project (or its proposal) for a more effective (fair) post-war governance of the world (state), in which "everyone will find a worthy place."

In particular, the principle of "benefit of war" is the main principle of finding and attracting strategic allies and forming the necessary coalitions.

Thus, it turns out that the natural state of a civilization (state) is a continuous permanent war, and if the ancient thinkers bequeathed to us the wisdom "remember the war", then today, the thesis "remember the world" can be considered modern and quite correct wisdom.

Generally:

war and peace - there are only stages (cycles and rhythms) of the existence of mankind (and powers);

world- there is a way to fulfill the roles shaped by the last war, he forms the potential for change, and this is his job and his "cause";

war- there is a way of structuring, that is, a way of transition to a new model of the architecture of the world and its management, a way of redistributing the old and obtaining (conquering) new places, roles and statuses of states. War redistributes the roles and statuses of its participants, it realizes the potential for change, redistributes it, and this is its "work" and its "business".

Thus, war is the same natural state of civilization as the world, since it is only a phase of the cycle of its existence, a certain result of the world and a procedure (method) for structuring the world and establishing its new architecture, changing existing paradigms, roles and resources, including number and resources of global (regional, state) management.

War- this is a social process characterized by a purposeful struggle of the subjects of geopolitics for the approval of their winning part in a new role and status (for confirmation of the old ones), and for the possibility of their formation of a new structure and picture of the world and its subsequent management.

War, there is - purposeful organized violence of one subject of society over another.

War, is - a state of direct or retaliatory purposeful organized violence against the society that opposes it.

War implies the presence of a formed goal and plan of war, as well as real actions of the nation (society, state) for its preparation and conduct.

The world, as a state of society developing in a natural way, can be assessed as its post-war or pre-war state.

The world is purposeful only then when it is an indispensable and necessary condition for the development of a nation that plans (projects, and not only predicts) its development and existence, and, regardless of the outcome of the war, effectively uses the possibilities of its post-war state.

The actual armed struggle is only an extreme, extremely violent form of war.

The purpose of the war- not the destruction of the enemy, but the forceful redistribution of the role functions of the subjects of society (for example, states) in favor of a strong one, capable of forming its own model of post-war management of society, as well as fully enjoying the strategic effects of its victory.

Scale of the war(total or limited war) and its severity depend solely on the decisiveness of the political goals of the parties.

The features of modern war are its inclusiveness, ruthlessness and(especially for its information component), its continuity and irrecoverability of the former paradigms of the existence of the losing side.

State of Modern Warfare- this is a state of permanent, incessant, controlled "distemper", imposed by the strongest on the rest of the world and on the opposite side.

Signs of war- these are constant and permanent changes in the state of the sovereignties and potentials of the parties, during which it is found that one of them is clearly losing national (state) sovereignty and losing its (cumulative) potential (losing its positions), and the other is clearly increasing its own.

An accurate and unambiguous sign of war is the use by the parties (one of the parties) of their armed forces.

The means (weapon) of war is anything, the use of which allows you to achieve the goals of the war, or decide the outcome of its episodes.

An episode of war is any event of a war that has its own meaning, time frame and fits into the general plan of the war.

Terms of the war are no longer determined by the official (recognized by the world community) fixation of victory, as happened, for example, after the signing of the Act of Unconditional Surrender of Germany in 1945, or as a result of the signing of the Belovezhskaya Accords in 1991 (which can be considered the Act of Unconditional Surrender of the USSR as the party that lost World War III - Cold War).

In the world war going on today, the dates are not determined because the war itself has a permanent (constantly ongoing) character.

It seems important to us to introduce, into the logic and theory presented above, some conclusions from the civilizational (value) analysis of wars and military conflicts of the 20th century, and especially the aggressive wars of the West-USA "against all" of the last decade. They are as follows.

The results of the analysis show that in modern conditions the struggle of geopolitical projects, and in them the rivalry of national (civilizational) values, is no longer of a complimentary (mutually respectful) nature, but has the appearance of war.

In a modern war, its object is not so much the actual armed or economic components of the state as its national values, since only they make the nation and the state what they are in the history of mankind, their change is the main task of the war.

The main "prize" of the war is the expansion not so much of the geopolitical and economic "resource field" as the expansion of the complementary (friendly) value area of ​​​​the winner, since only the mutual complementarity of nations (that is, the friendly compatibility of the value bases of their being) gives that benevolent (favorable) internal and external climate of their international (mutual) coexistence, and is the best guarantee against mutual aggression, which, in turn, improves the nation's chances for historical survival, and in the opposite case, worsens them.

In other words, the main "prize" of the war is the national mentality of the defeated side, forcibly changed by the war. If this does not happen, that is, the defeated nation does not surrender, then the initial and obvious success of the winner (every victory) is always so historically temporary and unsteady that the answer (revenge of the defeated) is inevitable.

This means that a war to change national values ​​(in the event that the goals of the war are achieved by forcibly changing national values) always ends in the final (historical) defeat of the aggressor-initiator of the war, and this is one of the laws of war.

Thus, modern war, regardless of its scale and legal certainty and the status of the parties, is determined by a set of very precise certainties.

First of all. The presence of the Goal, the achievement of which should lead to a new level and

the status of one of the parties to the war.

Secondly. The presence of the enemy as the opposite side of the war.

Thirdly. Violence as a means to achieve the goal of war.

Fourth. The organization of violence to ensure the achievement of the objectives of the war.

Fifth. Mobilization, concentration of resources to achieve victory in the war.

At sixth. Conducting military operations.

Seventh. Victory or defeat in the war of one of its sides.

2.3 "Winning the War"

"You are looking for victories, and I am looking for meaning in them!" - such was the remark of Field Marshal Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov to his generals before the battle of Maloyaroslavets.

The great Russian commander was aware of the importance of the meaningfulness of victory in the war, realizing that no matter how terrible the war itself is, the defeat in it is even more terrible.

Therefore, he built a war strategy in such a way that all the components of this strategy meaningfully and inevitably led to a military victory over the enemy, as the basis for the future benefits of Russia's development.

Now, the importance of considering this problem lies in the fact that without even theoretical certainty in this matter, it is impossible to formulate an answer to an absolutely doctrinal question: "What do we want from our Army, as a fighting force, if and when it will be used?", and "Is it possible to be a great power without ever defeating anyone?"

The excellent Russian military writer A. Kersnovsky defined his own, but shared by the majority of educated and humanistically educated people, view of the problem of war and victory in it as follows:

"War is not waged to kill, but to win.

The immediate goal of war is victory, the final goal is peace, restoration of harmony, which is the natural state of human society.

Everything else is excesses, and excesses are harmful. When dictating peace to a defeated enemy, one should be guided by strict moderation, not drive him to despair with excessive demands that only breed hatred, and therefore, sooner or later, new wars. To force the enemy to respect himself, and for this do not go into chauvinism, respect the national and simply human dignity of the vanquished."

Everything in this phrase is correct, but it seems to us that a professional view of the problem makes it much more difficult.

The military encyclopedic dictionary interprets the category of military victory as a military success, defeating enemy troops, achieving goals set for a battle, operation, war as a whole.

"VICTORY- a successful outcome of a war, military operation, military campaign or battle for one of the opposing sides. It is characterized by the defeat or surrender of the enemy, the complete suppression of his ability to resist.

Victory in a large-scale war acquires world-historical significance, and the memory of it becomes one of the key elements of the national self-consciousness of the victorious nation."

We share the general interpretation of the category "victory" given by V. Tsymbursky, who wrote: "In fact, victory as "achieving goals in the struggle in spite of the resistance of the other side" cannot "not be the goal of the war" in the very meaning of the concept of victory - and the meaning is invariant, lying deeper than all historically changeable interpretations.

From the height of the philosophy of war, victory in war is the (same) moment of truth, which:

• fixes the realization of the potential for change in peacetime, as the realization of applications (claims) for a new role, place and status of the winning side;
• means the fixation (legal consolidation or consolidation post factum) of the transition to a new quality of the old system of relations and roles of the participants in the war (or confirms the old status of the parties);
• determines the beginning of a period of peacetime;
• consolidates the results and experience of the war in the law and relations of the parties;
• gives impetus to the progress of peacetime, giving it new areas and directions of exploration and development.

The parties put up with the results of the war and this is a victory, even if the losing side is still capable of resistance, but the "insignificance" of which is no longer taken into account in the new alignment of forces and roles.

Thus, victory can be viewed as the result of a combat interaction or other open (hidden) clash, when one side gains the upper hand over the other. Here it acts as a way of redistributing the results (effects) between the participants in the conflict.

In this case, the goal of victory is to establish new or restore old relationships between the participants, change or maintain the status quo.

Important remark Representations by British military theorist Liddell Harth about the essence of victory as the goal of war “Victory in its true meaning implies that the post-war order of the world and the material situation of the people should be better than before the war. Such a victory is possible only if a quick result is achieved or if a long effort is economically spent in accordance with the resources of the country. The end must match the means. Having lost the favorable prospect of achieving such a victory, the prudent statesman will not miss the opportunity to make peace. A peace brought about by a stalemate on both sides, and based on mutual recognition by each side of the strength of the adversary, is at least preferable to a peace made as a result of general attrition, and often provides stronger foundations for a reasonable peace after a war." "The prudence to risk war for the sake of peace, rather than to expose oneself to the danger of exhaustion in war in order to achieve victory, is a conclusion contrary to habit, but reinforced by experience. Perseverance in war will only be justified if there are good chances for a good end, that is, with the prospect of establishing a peace that compensates for the human suffering endured in the struggle. “Speaking about the purpose of war, it is necessary to understand well the difference between political and military goals. These goals are different, but closely related, because countries wage war not for the sake of war itself, but for the sake of achieving a political goal. A military goal is only a means to a political goal. Therefore, the military goal must be determined by the political goal, and the main condition follows - not to set unrealizable military goals. “The purpose of war is to achieve a better, if only from your point of view, state of the world after the war. Therefore, when waging war, it is important to remember what kind of world you need. This applies equally to aggressive countries, seeking to expand their territory, and to peace-loving countries, which are fighting for self-preservation, although the views of aggressive and peace-loving countries on what a "better state of the world" is are very different.

Victory can also be interpreted as a result that pays for the costs of achieving it.

A result measured in purely monetary terms (for example, the possibility of obtaining certain benefits from compensation, indemnities or reparations) received directly from the vanquished, or in the form of "strategic effects", as a variant of "deferred benefits", obtained from the exploitation of the politically and geo-economically formalized results of victory .

Paraphrasing the statement of the Russian military scientist and émigré A. Zalf, who formulated the basic law of armed struggle, which is known, unfortunately, only to a few specialists, we can say that - "in a war, the side that has previously produced so much useful military work (including and combat work), which is necessary to break the moral and material resistance of the enemy and force him to submit to our will.

Desiring to achieve victory, each side must clearly understand its role, tasks and capabilities not only in the war, but also in the period before and after the war, that is, in peacetime, a time longer than the time of the armed struggle of the war itself.

At the same time, there is always, explicitly or implicitly, a third party - an ally or mediator, who, as a rule, reaps its fruits, that is, the benefits and results of the redistribution of spheres of influence that has begun, gaining the opportunity to influence both parties in their own interests, etc.

At the same time, peace is understood here as the only way and condition for the fulfillment of the roles established as a result of the outcome of the war.

Victory concerns the winner, the vanquished and the ally (intermediary), as a result of the actions of the three parties, as a factor in eliminating the uncertainty that was before the victory.

At the same time, it is important to understand that in order to define "victory" as a category of realized military success, it is necessary: ​​the conflict of the parties; the enemy as an object of military influence; standard - the criterion of victory, that is, its goal and reality, the presence of which makes it possible to unequivocally define it as the success of one of the parties; and also, the actual, legal and (or) political consolidation of this success.

The standards of victory can also be varied- this is both "depriving the enemy of the will to resist, and ensuring peace on our terms"; it is both "crushing" and "destruction" of the enemy; this and "the destruction of the opponent's claim to win" and so on.

Thus, now we can have several options for the standard of victory, and only the decision of the top political leadership of the state can and should determine which of them corresponds to our interests and capabilities in a specific historical situation, as one of the main basic doctrinal points of the national Strategy and military policy .

It is important to understand that if the standard of victory at the level of tactics is always the crushing (destruction) of the enemy, at the level of operational art it is almost always a military success proper, then at the level of strategy, that is, at the level not so much of the actual military, but at the level state interactions, victory may have another standard than crushing the enemy and depriving him of the opportunity to resist.

In general, the tactical and operational levels of a combat clash of the parties are not designed to change their political status, while victory at the strategic level always presupposes the achievement of general political goals.

At the same time, the winner takes everything, and the loser gets a chance for his national survival, remaining in a new role, in the role and quality of an object of exploitation and a territory for development.

A. Shcherbatov wrote: “Under the current conditions of international struggle, victory remains with the fighting force behind which there is a nationwide determination to win, at all costs and no matter what the cost of sacrifices. It is easy to create such a mood in the Russian people, since the state the beginning has always taken precedence over personal interests, but it is necessary that in the minds of the people there should be a clear idea of ​​the tasks of the struggle, and for what exactly sacrifices are required from it.

The price of war and victory in it directly depend on our understanding that victory is the salvation of the nation and its future, and defeat is slavery and the death of (at least) Russian civilization.

Obviously, for this, Russia must have its own, determined by its national state idea, national and pragmatic National Strategy, which would work in wartime and peacetime and would exclude the repetition of our historical mistakes.

Now let's answer the above doctrinal questions.

1. We want and demand from our Army, as from the fighting force contained by the nation, only victory in any war, and another Army of the nation is not needed.

Russia is obliged to create, maintain, respect and provide for an Army worthy of its historical mission and greatness.

2. A great power becomes great only when, with its indisputable victories in wars, it asserts its right to greatness, world recognition, a leading role in the world and respect for its peoples, thereby asserts its right to peace, successful development and eternity in the history of mankind.

A great power must have a national ideology that ensures awareness and full support by the nation of its great power, responsibility for its historical destiny and for the formation of its national elite set for victory.

2.4 Aftermath of the war

The history of mankind confirms that the winner in the war always considers the resources of the vanquished to be his military, and therefore free, booty, and the very fact of victory in the war, as it were, a priori, implies the right to free exploitation of the population and resources of the vanquished.

The reparations and indemnities of a modern war are essentially the same - territory and resources, but already given to the winner voluntarily and practically without shedding much blood.

Now this "prize part of the war" is realized in the form of direct and delayed strategic effects obtained through the use of new operational means of war.

But in general, as a result of the war:

winners- will single-handedly manage the whole world (region), that is, all its connections, use all its resources, and build at their own discretion the world architecture they need, securing their victory (themselves, in this status and opportunities) for centuries, by creating an appropriate system of international rights;

defeated- will be managed by the winners, will become part of the supporting subsystem of the new global governance and will pay with their national interests, resources, territory, historical past, culture and future.

The fact that war is death, blood and destruction, that is, a disaster, is a thesis so clear that it does not even need to be explained, Russia, like no other power, knows this more than well in its own history.

But the consequences of the war are not limited exclusively to direct reparations and indemnities.

The most serious consequences of a war, especially a long and bloody one, is the initiation (or acceleration) of the process of degradation of a nation.

This constant and accompanying the history of mankind and Russia, the war factor was absolutely correctly noticed and formulated as early as 1922 by the outstanding Russian publicist and sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, who wrote:

"The fate of any society depends primarily on the properties of its members. A society consisting of idiots or mediocre people will never be a successful society. Give a group of devils a magnificent constitution, and yet this will not create a beautiful society out of it. And vice versa, a society consisting of from talented and strong-willed individuals, will inevitably create more perfect forms of community life.It is easy to understand from this that for the historical fate of any society it is far from indifferent: what qualitative elements in it have increased or decreased in such and such a period of time.A careful study of the phenomena of prosperity and death of entire peoples shows that one of the main reasons for them was precisely a sharp qualitative change in the composition of the population in one direction or another.

The changes experienced by the population of Russia in this respect are typical of all major wars and revolutions. The latter have always been an instrument of negative selection, producing top-to-bottom selection, i.e., killing the best elements of the population and leaving the worst elements to live and multiply, i.e. people of the second and third grade,

And in this case, we lost mainly elements: a) the most biologically healthy, b) energetically able-bodied, c) more strong-willed, gifted, morally and mentally developed psychologically.

"The last wars have finished us off. It is possible to restore the destroyed factories and plants, villages and cities, in a number of years the pipes will smoke again, the fields will turn green, hunger will disappear - all this is fixable and replaceable. But consequences of the selection of the general(World War I. A.V.) and the civil war are irreversible and irreplaceable. The real payments on their bills are in the future, when generations of surviving "human slush" grow up. "By their fruits you shall know them"...

Our folk wisdom only confirms this bitter conclusion "in a war, the best die first."

In general, this means that the war is leading to:

• the death of the best citizens and passionaries of the nation;
• the triumph of human slush (P. Sorokin);
• changing the sign of patriotism from "national greatness" to "national worthlessness and imitation", that is, "patriotism of national humiliation";
• the degeneration of the nation;
• the loss of the historical place, role and purpose of the nation in the history of mankind and its historical oblivion.

This list and the list could go on almost endlessly.

Perhaps this is precisely the most terrible consequences and the most profound strategic consequences of wars, but do all wars lead to such results and to such consequences?

We believe that practically everything, since any kind of "loss" is an accurate sign of war and its inevitable factor.

We will touch on this issue in more detail in the section on the laws of war, but we will say right away that the onset of the historically disastrous consequences of war for a nation directly depend both on the duration and severity of the war, especially when large-scale forms of armed struggle are used in it, and on the goals of the war itself. war, especially on the level of morality of its goals, as well as on where, that is, in which theaters of war the war is being waged.

2.5 "Strategic Effects"

The most important category of the theory of war and national strategy is the concept of "strategic effects", by which we mean the onset of long-term positive changes in the status, capabilities and conditions of the existence of the nation, resulting from the implementation of the goals (including intermediate ones) of the national strategy, stages and episodes of the war .

In practice, it is precisely the positive strategic effects of war that are its goals.

The strategic effects obtained as a result of victory in the war, directly and quickly and / or slowly and indirectly, lead to an improvement in the quality of life of the nation, the strengthening of the role and place of the nation in the world, improve the general conditions for the survival of the nation and create the prerequisites for its historical eternity, and so on.

In the field of the economics of war, strategic effects can consist of:

• stimulation of national science and economy by their own militarism and internal mobilizations;
• obtaining direct economic benefits from receiving a new mass of state (international) orders, "for war" and "for reconstruction";
• from the direct "benefits of the war", for example, reparations, confiscations, indemnities, the seizure of new resource spaces, their monopoly and uncontrolled use;
• obtaining indirect economic benefits from the geopolitical transformation of the territory and spaces of the defeated in the war, for example, the control of resource and transit zones, changes in the economic balance in the region and the creation of a "new internal market";
• obtaining direct and indirect economic benefits from the very fact of "eliminating" a competitor";
• benefiting from the new international and regional division of labor, as well as from the management of resource flows;
• creating conditions for "new investment attractiveness" and so on.

Here, it seems appropriate to us, to recall that there are also negative effects of war. This means that in the event of a defeat in a war, the nation becomes a "donor" of the winner, a field for the realization of his strategic effects, which may affect its historical fate - curtailment.

3. On the national strategy of Russia

The general foundations of the theory of war dictate their own conditions and framework for the formation of the national strategy of Russia, as a theory, practice and art of government

In this regard, the basic concepts of the National Strategy are new strategic categories

• Strategic Matrix of the Nation
• The people as a position
• The ideal, as the meaning of being, the image of the future of Russia desired by the nation, as a goal
• national strategy and the basis of the position of the people
• The nation's own higher internal and external determinations as
• foundations of its strategic position
• The strategic line of conduct of the nation
• Maximum expansion line
• "Peace" and "war" time
• national space
• "National Interest" and "National Security" - a new reading
• The information sphere of the nation and its security

Dear colleagues!

Of course, it is not possible to cover the entire general theory of war and the national strategy of Russia at one round table, and we did not set ourselves such a goal. But the general outline of the tasks, in this regard, they tried to bring to you.

However, today we have begun a process of rethinking the theory of statecraft, which can lead us to concrete, new and effective state practices that will affect the success of our country.

Thank you for attention.

5 Creveld Martin van. Martin van Creveld / The Transformation of War. Per. from English. - M.: Albina Business Books, 2005. (Series "Military Thought")

6 POSTULATE(from lat. postulatum - requirement) -
1) a statement (judgment) accepted within the framework of any scientific theory as true, although not provable by its means, and therefore playing the role of an axiom in it.
2) The general name for the axioms and derivation rules of any calculus. Modern encyclopedia. 2000.
POSTULATE, A position or principle that is not self-evident, but is taken as truth without evidence and serves as the basis for building some kind of scientific theory, assumption. (For example, the postulates of Euclidean geometry). Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary. D.N. Ushakov. 1935-1940.
POSTULATE- A judgment accepted without proof as a starting point in the construction of a scientific theory .. Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2009

7 AXIOM(Greek axioma), a position accepted without logical proof due to direct persuasiveness; the true starting point of the theory.
Great Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius. - M.: SURE DVD. 2003

8 This phenomenon is considered in the work "Theses on the logic of ethnogenesis and passionarity of the main modern geopolitical players, and the imperatives of Russia's national strategy" Vladimirov AI Abstracts on the strategy of Russia. - M.: "Publishing house of YuKEA". 2004, p. 36 In this work, "Lev Gumilyov and the National Strategy of Russia" are given in the Appendix to the Fourth Chapter.

9 HYPOTHESIS(Greek hypothesis - basis, assumption), a hypothetical judgment about the regular (causal) connection of phenomena; form of development of science. Great Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius. - M.: SURE DVD. 2003

10 According to Heidegger, world wars are "world-wars" (Welt-Kriege), "a preliminary form of eliminating the distinction between war and peace", which is inevitable, since the "world" has become a non-peace due to the abandonment of what is by the truth of being. In other words, in an age when the will to power rules, the world ceases to be a world.
"War has become a kind of that extermination of existence that continues in peace ... War does not go into the world of its former kind, but into a state where the military is no longer perceived as military, and the peaceful becomes meaningless and meaningless."
Heidegger M. Overcoming metaphysics // Heidegger M. Time and Being / Per. with him. V. V. Bibikhina. M.: Respublika, 1993. p.138
The term "peaceful military existence" was first introduced into Russian political science by the outstanding Russian military historian Ignat Stepanovich Danilenko.

11

18 V. Tsymbursky notes: “At the political level, a new standard of victory is formalized in the idea of ​​the surrender of the defeated regime, often with its overthrow by the winner. In 1856, the St. if the enemy is "deprived of ... of any ability to resist our actions," and strategic, when "we will extract from this situation all possible benefits for us," including "we will change the form of government of a hostile state." Military encyclopedic lexicon. Vol. 10. St. Petersburg ., 1856.

19 Shcherbatov A. State Defense of Russia. - M.: 1912. (Fragments). Based on the Russian military collection. Issue 19. State Defense of Russia. Imperatives of Russian military classics. - M.: Military University. Russian way. 2002.

20 Sorokin P. A. The current state of Russia. 1. Changes in the size and composition of the population. Polis No. 3 1991

21 Sorokin P. A. The influence of war on the composition of the population, its properties and social organization // The Economist.-1922.- No. 1.- P. 99-101

1. Stages of modern scientific and technological revolution

The term "Scientific and technological revolution" arose in the middle of the twentieth century, when a man created an atomic bomb, and it became clear that science could destroy our planet.

The scientific and technological revolution is characterized by two criteria:

1. Science and technology have grown together into a single system (this determines the combination of scientific and technical), as a result of which science has become a direct productive force.

2. Unprecedented success in the conquest of nature and man himself as part of nature.

The achievements of the scientific and technological revolution are impressive. It brought man into space, gave him a new source of energy - atomic energy, fundamentally new substances and technical means (laser), new means of mass communication and information, etc., etc.

Fundamental research is at the forefront of science. The attention of the authorities to them increased sharply after Albert Einstein informed US President Roosevelt in 1939 that physicists had discovered a new source of energy that would allow creating hitherto unseen weapons of mass destruction.

Modern science is "expensive". The construction of a synchrophasotron, necessary for conducting research in the field of elementary particle physics, requires billions of dollars. What about space exploration? In developed countries, science today spends 2-3% of the gross national product. But without this, neither a sufficient defense capacity of the country, nor its production power is possible.

Science is developing exponentially: the volume of scientific activity, including world scientific information in the 20th century, doubles every 10-15 years. Calculation of the number of scientists, sciences. In 1900 there were 100,000 scientists in the world, now there are 5,000,000 (one in a thousand people living on Earth). 90% of all scientists who have ever lived on the planet are our contemporaries. The process of differentiation of scientific knowledge has led to the fact that now there are more than 15,000 scientific disciplines.

Science not only studies the world and its evolution, but is itself a product of evolution, constituting, after nature and man, a special, "third" (according to Popper) world - the world of knowledge and skills. In the concept of three worlds - the world of physical objects, the world of individual mentality and the world of intersubjective (general human) knowledge - science has replaced Plato's "world of ideas". The third, the scientific world, has become as equivalent to the philosophical "world of ideas" as the "city of God" of Blessed Augustine in the Middle Ages.

In modern philosophy, there are two views on science in its connection with human life: science is a product created by a person (K. Jaspers) and science as a product of being, discovered through a person (M. Heidegger). The latter view leads even closer to the Platonic-Augustinian notions, but the former does not deny the fundamental importance of science.

Science, according to Popper, not only brings direct benefit to social production and the well-being of people, but also teaches to think, develops the mind, saves mental energy.

“From the moment science became reality, the truth of human statements is determined by their scientific nature. Therefore, science is an element of human dignity, hence its charms, through which it penetrates the secrets of the universe ”(K. Jaspers,“ The Meaning and Purpose of History ”)

The same charms led to an exaggerated idea of ​​the possibilities of science, to attempts to put it above and before other branches of culture. A kind of scientific "lobby" was created, which was called scientism (from the Latin "scientia" - science). It is in our time, when the role of science is truly enormous, that scientism appeared with the idea of ​​science, especially natural science, as the highest, if not absolute value. This scientific ideology stated that only science is able to solve all the problems facing humanity, including immortality.

Scientism is characterized by the absolutization of the style and methods of the "exact" sciences, declaring them the pinnacle of knowledge, often accompanied by a denial of social and humanitarian issues as having no cognitive significance. On the wave of scientism, the idea arose of “two cultures” that were not related to each other in any way - the natural sciences and the humanities (the book by the English writer Ch. Snow “Two Cultures”).

Within the framework of scientism, science was seen as the only sphere of spiritual culture in the future that would absorb its non-rational areas. In contrast to this, anti-scientist statements that also loudly declared themselves in the second half of the 20th century doom it either to extinction or to eternal opposition to human nature.

Anti-scientism proceeds from the position on the fundamental limitation of the possibilities of science in solving fundamental human problems, and in its manifestations it evaluates science as a force hostile to man, denying it a positive impact on culture. Yes, critics say, science improves the well-being of the population, but it also increases the danger of the death of mankind and the Earth from atomic weapons and pollution of the natural environment.

The scientific and technological revolution is a radical change taking place during the twentieth century in the scientific ideas of mankind, accompanied by major shifts in technology, the acceleration of scientific and technological progress and the development of productive forces.

The beginning of the scientific and technological revolution was prepared by the outstanding successes of natural science in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These include the discovery of the complex structure of the atom as a system of particles rather than an indivisible whole; the discovery of radioactivity and the transformation of elements; creation of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics; understanding the essence of chemical bonds, the discovery of isotopes, and then the production of new radioactive elements that are absent in nature.

The rapid development of the natural sciences continued into the middle of our century. New achievements have appeared in the physics of elementary particles, in the study of the microworld; Cybernetics was created, genetics and chromosome theory were developed.

The revolution in science was accompanied by a revolution in technology. The largest technical achievements of the late XIX - early XX century. - the creation of electrical machines, cars, aircraft, the invention of radio, gramophone. In the middle of the 20th century, electronic computers appeared, the use of which became the basis for the development of integrated automation of production and its management; the use and development of nuclear fission processes lays the foundation for atomic technology; rocket technology develops, space exploration begins; television is born and is widely used; synthetic materials with predetermined properties are created; transplantation of animal and human organs and other complex operations are successfully carried out in medicine.

The scientific and technological revolution is associated with a significant increase in industrial production and improvement of the management system. In industry, more and more new technical achievements are being applied, interaction between industry and science is increasing, the process of intensifying production is developing, and the time for developing and implementing new technical proposals is being reduced. There is a growing need for highly qualified personnel in all branches of science, technology and production. The scientific and technological revolution has a great impact on all aspects of society.

2. Transition to post-industrial civilization and internalization of the economy.

The term "post-industrial society" was born in the US back in the 1950s, when it became clear that American mid-century capitalism differed in many ways from the industrial capitalism that existed before the great crisis of 1929-1933. It is noteworthy that initially the post-industrial society was considered in terms of rationalistic concepts of linear progress, economic growth, welfare and labor technization, as a result of which working time is reduced and free time increases, respectively. At the same time, already in the late 1950s, Erisman questioned the expediency of unlimited growth in wealth, noting that among young Americans from the "upper middle class" the prestige of owning certain things was gradually declining.

Since the late 1960s, the term "post-industrial society" has been filled with new content. Scientists identify such features as the mass distribution of creative, intellectual labor, a qualitatively increased volume of scientific knowledge and information used in production, the predominance in the structure of the economy of the service sector, science, education, culture over industry and agriculture in terms of share in GNP and the number of employees. , changing the social structure.

In a traditional agrarian society, the main task was to provide the population with basic means of subsistence. Therefore, efforts were concentrated in agriculture, in food production. In the industrial society that has come to replace this problem has faded into the background. In developed countries, 5-6% of the population employed in agriculture provided food for the entire society.

Industry came to the fore. It employed the bulk of the people. Society developed along the path of accumulation of material goods.

The next stage is associated with the transition from an industrial to a service society. Theoretical knowledge is of decisive importance for the implementation of technological innovations. The volumes of this knowledge are becoming so large that they provide a qualitative leap. Extremely developed means of communication ensure the free dissemination of knowledge, which makes it possible to talk about a qualitatively new type of society.

In the 19th century and up to the middle of the 20th century, communication existed in two different forms. The first is mail, newspapers, magazines and books, i.e. media that were printed on paper and distributed by physical transport or stored in libraries. The second is the telegraph, telephone, radio and television; here, coded messages or speech were transmitted by means of radio signals or by cable communication from person to person. Now technologies that once existed in different fields of application are blurring these distinctions, so that consumers of information have at their disposal a variety of alternative means, which also creates a number of complex problems from the point of view of legislators.