The topic is about the essence and content of hybrid wars. What is a hybrid war against Russia: the essence of the theory and practice of NATO and the USA. What is, in short, hybrid warfare?

The development of information technology affected not only social relations, technological progress and increasing the well-being of people, but also made adjustments to military doctrines, plans and strategies of combat operations.

This process also affected our country, since changes in the international arena forced Western countries to begin opposing the Russian revival from the ashes of the USSR. Putin’s hybrid war against Russia concerns social relations, includes political processes and affects the economies of the warring countries.

The essence of the hybrid war against Russia

This type of struggle does not involve the direct outbreak of hostilities with the help of the active army and other armed formations.

During this period, the Americans introduced the concept of “hybrid warfare”

The main factors of influence are special services, agents of influence, state corporations and political actions. Over the past 15 years, informational influence on the public opinion of the enemy and its active population groups has been added to the list.

The first application of the principles and principles in the history of hybrid warfare occurred in the Republic of Iran during the overthrow of the local Shah. An information campaign has been prepared in the West to discredit the local political regime; agents of influence within the political and economic elite of Iran betrayed their leader and brought demonstrators to the streets.

The military leadership, bribed by American intelligence agencies, ignored orders and did not resist the demonstrators. European banks have frozen the accounts of the Iranian government and the assets of its leaders. These factors led to the fall of the regime and the establishment of a pro-American leadership.

The first use of hybrid warfare occurred in the Republic of Iran.

The essence of modern hybrid warfare is:

• Using soft power in conflict using economic and political leverage.
• Application of modern technologies propaganda and information processing of the enemy population. Creation of a negative information field of the local government and the existing regime, discrediting the leaders and active managers of the state.
• Nomination of agents influences from the local population. Providing them with financial and organizational support in creating a negative image of the local government. Organization of protest rallies, provocations of authorities and mass events aimed at portraying the political system in a negative light. If possible, organizing civil disobedience on a large scale, provocations and mass actions of a hooligan nature and riots.
• Economic "enslavement" political leaders of the enemy country. In modern times, the European and American banking systems have absorbed the financial assets of many political elites. This financial instrument is an effective way to influence specific individuals in recruiting and fulfilling the interests of the enemy. The financial side involves the introduction of economic sanctions and a ban on the issuance of foreign loans and other financial financing.
• Creating a Negative information perception among the local society through the creation of news agencies on enemy territory and the expansion of broadcasting among the local population. Influencing through the media and conveying a different view of social processes creates a distorted perception of reality in the local community and prepares support for subsequent political changes.

These factors and methods have been used by Western countries in relation to Russia and its political leadership for 20 years with varying degrees of success.

Officially, “hybrid warfare” received recognition 5 years ago.

A successful case of foreign influence and the implementation of the parameters of a hybrid war is the overthrow of the legitimate government in Ukraine in 2014, after which pro-American forces hostile to Russia came to power.

And despite the worsening economic indicators and the falling living standards of the population, the political course towards worsening relations continues.

A good example of what a hybrid war is in Ukraine was the demonstration of classical methods of unleashing it. First, protests by civilians, and then rivers of blood in the east of the country. The West provides economic, political and military support to the current regime. Russia, in turn, helps the unrecognized republics.

US and NATO strategy

Features of NATO hybrid warfare involve the use of existing means of influencing the enemy without declaring official war. Such a strategy in relation to Russia justifies itself, since when war is declared and an armed conflict begins, NATO forces will suffer unacceptable losses, and these actions will also lead to the outbreak of a conflict with the use of weapons of mass destruction and the total destruction of the warring parties.

Therefore, waging a hybrid war to achieve a change in political leadership and establish political and economic control over Russia is the priority and main task of the NATO military bloc.

Information units have been created within the alliance's structures for propaganda and information impact on the Russian public.

Public funds are being created with Western funding, which aim to change the information space, finance agents of influence on Russian territory and discredit the political and military leadership of the country.

The political leadership of Western countries and the NATO bloc is fighting the influence of Russian media, banning broadcasting and limiting the distribution and increase in the audience of the RT and Sputnik agencies.

Cyber ​​troops have been created in the military units of NATO countries.

Those who are engaged in espionage on the World Wide Web, disseminating defamatory information and forming the necessary public opinion on social networks, specialized political forums and other places of mass traffic on the Internet.

On the battlefield, the use of NATO forces, according to the concept of military conflict, is carried out through the interaction of various formations and branches of the military with agents of influence on enemy territory - traitors in the military sphere and political leadership.

The foundations and principles of NATO hybrid warfare on the battlefield are being developed during the armed conflict in Donbass. NATO forces provide military instruction to units of the Ukrainian army, supply them with weapons and uniforms, and in some cases, instructors take part in armed clashes.

The media of NATO countries support the course of the Ukrainian government and present the actions of the unrecognized republics and Russia in a negative light and discredit the political leadership of the country, presenting Russia as an aggressor and violator of international norms.

The supply of weapons and uniforms is intended to weaken the armed forces of the LPR and DPR republics and draw the Russian armed forces into armed confrontation. The concept of hybrid warfare on the battlefield has been implemented for 5 years and has not achieved successful results.

Features, theory and practice of management

The theory of hybrid warfare does not provide for the open use of armed forces. It became a priority in the US and NATO strategy to promote corporate interests on the world stage in the 70s. These theories were put into practice during coups and displacement of the political leadership of the countries of the Middle East, Latin America and Asia.

Hybrid methods of warfare exclude the use of armed forces of NATO member countries. The destruction of the political system is carried out through internal interference in the affairs of states and the financing of collaborators on the territory of the enemy country.

In Iraq and Russia, hybrid warfare efforts have not achieved success.

In the first case, action was required by the armed forces of NATO countries and the military overthrow of the regime.

Putin’s classic hybrid war is now being waged in Syria against Western countries. The leadership of Syria and Russia act as opponents of international terrorism organized by Western countries.

US actions are aimed at overthrowing Assad and weakening Russia's influence in the Middle East. The theory of action of NATO countries at the domestic political level in Russia is as follows:

• Bribery of public figures, scientific leaders and political leaders to apply direct influence on the country's leadership and the public.
• Increasing information influence on Russian society through the distribution of broadcasting of its own information sources to a wide social audience. Creation of new channels, radio stations and Internet resources to promote one’s own point of view.
• Distortion of the information field through provocations, creating fictitious news and using unverified sources that discredit the Russian government.
• Creation of community groups and associations that aim to spread democracy and protect the interests of public groups. In fact, these associations are funded by Western governments and defend the interests of US structures.
• Introduction of economic sanctions, influence on partners of the Russian state, the introduction of an embargo against Russian companies and a ban on conducting activities abroad. An effective tool was the ban on issuing financial loans to Russian enterprises and the freezing of certain assets.
• Covert financing of the armed forces Islamist gangs in the North Caucasus and Syria that oppose the Russian armed forces.
• Supporting the destructive forces of the opposition and organizing rallies and civil disobedience.

What is a hybrid war against Russia

To understand what a hybrid war against Russia, unleashed by the leaders of NATO countries and the United States, is, it is necessary to understand the tactics of its conduct on external and internal political fronts.

For example, in the international arena, our country’s Western opponents do not miss the opportunity to carry out aggressive actions aimed at reducing Russia’s international influence and its external isolation.

The latest action of hybrid actions at the external level was the excommunication of Russian athletes from participation in the Winter Olympics without presenting significant evidence of the guilt of the participants.

Hybrid wars damage Russia's international authority.

They reduce the internal prestige of the political leadership and, accordingly, directly influence the election results.

Foreign policy actions also affect decisions in the UN Security Council. Opponents block decisions put forward by Russia in the international arena and prevent the implementation of initiatives and humanitarian solutions, pursuing their own interests.

In the economic sphere, in international markets, Western countries use hybrid attacks as levers of unfair competition, blocking the work of Russian companies by imposing sanctions and restrictions on work under fictitious pretexts.

By implementing the decisions of political forums, which have become the main weapon for hybrid warfare, Western countries are trying to reduce Russia’s political influence outside its borders, discrediting the country’s leadership and its socio-political structure through the media.

A popular topic among the Western press is the distortion of historical events, putting Russia/USSR in a negative light. This work is bearing successful fruit, as in Western countries the overwhelming majority of the population incorrectly interprets the participation of the USSR, downplaying the role of the Soviet army in the defeat of the enemy in World War II.

By reducing and distorting historical events, Western leaders are changing the attitude of their own public towards Russia, thereby preparing society for a possible military conflict.

In the eyes of the West, Russia is an aggressor and a violator of international law.

In the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the Western population, Russia is an aggressor and a violator of international law. This opinion was strongly influenced by the events of 2014–2015 in Crimea, which were disseminated by Western media as unconditional acts of aggression.

Also at the international level, economic initiatives for Russia’s interaction with other countries in the military sphere, provision of loans, and infrastructure construction are being blocked.

Forecasting and planning future operations

With the development of information technology, the emphasis in conducting combat operations in indirect hybrid warfare is on the development of information networks, especially on the Internet.

On the Internet, most young people obtain information about events in the world, so exposure through the network allows you to adjust public opinion in the right direction and form trends in the perception of social events and political phenomena through the prism of Western perception.

Economics and politics remain fields for hybrid warfare.

In the economic space, impact on the enemy’s economy can lead to a deterioration in the well-being of citizens, a decline in production and the financial sector, which subsequently leads to a controlled change in political leadership.

Also, economic wars will allow you to take the resource base and control of the country into your own hands.

The political component consists of introducing agents of influence into power structures to include the influence of Western structures on the political life of the country.

Also, the creation of various political movements and the management of the opposition influences the public opinion of the population and forms a negative perception of the authorities.

Terrorist formations and other paramilitary groups aimed at active military opposition to state power.

Such cases in relation to Russia include financing and supplying military equipment to terrorists in the North Caucasus in the 90s, as well as arming Islamists and training militants in Syria and supplying weapons to the hostile Ukrainian regime.

The military component includes the financing of radical groups.

The main difference from conventional military operations is the absence of direct combat between the warring parties. The armed forces of the parties do not enter into direct confrontation, but provide instructions to the parties’ opponents and finance hostile groups.

This type of confrontation is aimed at removing the political leadership in a relatively peaceful manner without destroying production assets and infrastructure. In relation to Russia, such a war aims, in addition to overthrowing the existing system, to seize economic control over the country and control over the use of natural resources.

Hybrid war against Russia - this term appeared in the everyday life of citizens of our country a decade ago. It has been known to professionals since the 90s. Western media call the events taking place on the world stage nothing less than Putin’s hybrid war against Ukraine. Is this really true?

What is the essence of hybrid warfare?

The natural outcome of confrontation between states (blocs, coalitions) is victory. Modern technologies have made it possible to inflict defeat without millions of casualties on the battlefield. The participation of the armed forces is part of the overall strategy:

1. Undermine the state's economy. Methods: sanctions, embargo, maneuvering on world prices of strategic raw materials and currencies;
2. Reduce the morale of the population and the armed forces. Methods: collapse of the domestic and foreign markets, initiation of a surge in inflation, rising unemployment, terrorist attacks, intimidating events, and so on;
3. Blocking the opinion of the world community through the media. Monopolization of international information resources, provision of distorted data, deliberate suppression of facts, simulation of non-existent events;
4. Depletion of financial resources, collapse of the state budget. The method is being drawn into a military conflict, entailing material costs;
5. Undermining trust in the current government. Manipulation of public consciousness, support for radical opposition, initiation of riots, “color revolutions”, protests;
6. Other economic, informational, sociological and political components.

What is NATO hybrid warfare on the battlefield?

NATO hybrid warfare has brought changes to the classical understanding of military operations. Tactics are taking on new forms, the distinctive features of which are:

• hostilities take place on the territory of other states that are not direct participants in the confrontation;
• in a civil war, units formed from civilians (volunteer units, extremist armed formations, human shields of non-military personnel, etc.) participate;
• supervision of combat operations by NATO consultants;
• provision of weapons, supplies, uniforms, ammunition, equipment.

Theory of conducting hybrid wars between the USA and NATO at the domestic political level

It is possible to gain control over a state that serves as a springboard for further actions if you neutralize the current government, which is loyal to the enemy state. In return, we need to install a government that will unquestioningly carry out orders even to the detriment of its own country.

This means that the hybrid war strategy allows:

• impeachment of the president;
• armed coup;
• overthrow of power by uprising;
• liquidation of the first leader of the country and persons occupying key positions;
• recruitment of opposition leaders;
• bribery of parliamentarians and deputies;
• material support for radical forces;
• other violent and non-violent ways to remove the president and government from office.

Hybrid war is a conspiracy between states against one country. This fact means that the participants are not only the United States, but also everyone included in the NATO bloc.

Foreign policy side of the hybrid war against Russia

The reasons for Ukrainian destabilization lie in the reluctance of V.F. Yanukovych to become part of the alliance. Awareness of the benefits of cooperation with Russia, understanding of the importance of strategic partnership, desire to repay loans to the International Monetary Fund. These factors served as a catalyst for the outbreak of the conflict.

This does not mean that the war might not have happened. The behavior of the United States and Western partners indicated that global confrontation was inevitable. It started in the last decades of the twentieth century. The hybrid war on the territory of Ukraine is the next round.

Place of battles in hybrid wars

The definition of mixed war (hybrid) does not imply a specific territorial characteristic. The modern world economy presupposes close ties between states that do not border each other. Location on different continents is also not decisive.

The place of action can be any state within the orbit of interests of the Russian Federation. By causing a revolutionary conflict, a coup, a civil war, or sponsoring a terrorist group, the United States can force the Russian Federation to participate in solving the problem. This fact means material costs, the ability to present what is happening as an invasion, seizure, establishment of a regime or annexation.

Modern technologies involve conducting hybrid wars in cyber space. Blocking Internet information sources, attacks on control and management systems of strategic military and civilian facilities. Restrictions on the exchange of technologies and developments. These factors are levers of pressure directed against Russia.

World exchanges. Here the battles are just as fierce. Declining prices for strategic raw materials provokes a fall in the national currency. We will not list all the ways to influence the state’s economy. Suffice it to note that the defense capability of countries directly depends on the world market (raw materials, foreign exchange, production).

Signing agreements on interstate cooperation, persuading states to their side with promises, loans, deception, bribery of key officials - methods of reducing the influence of the enemy on the world stage and ways of initiating the decline of the domestic economy.

The place where hybrid wars are fought is the entire globe and near-Earth space (the battle for supremacy within the orbit). The sphere of influence is any activity of human civilization. At the moment, the Russian Federation is taking the blow and is able to respond to it without violating international ethical standards.

If you have any questions, leave them in the comments below the article. We or our visitors will be happy to answer them

Since 1991, 6 military operations have been carried out with the participation of NATO member countries: in Iraq - “Desert Storm” (1991), in Yugoslavia - “Allied Force” (1999), in Iraq - “Desert Fox” (1998) , in Afghanistan - “Enduring Freedom” (2001), in Iraq - “Freedom for Iraq” (2003), in Libya - “United Defender” (2011). The official reasons for making the final decision to use force in each case were different, but if we analyze them all, we can conclude that one main goal was always pursued - consolidating the dominance of the United States and NATO and ousting Russia from the region.

However, every year it becomes more and more difficult for even NATO countries to carry out such operations. In addition, they are very expensive. For this purpose, the so-called “color” revolutions were developed, which it is advisable to call a new type of war in modern conditions.

The preparation and conduct of such wars have undergone fairly reliable testing. In 12 countries, “color” revolutions ended with a change of state power, and in three countries they took place twice: in Ukraine (2004, 2014), Yemen (2011, 2015), Lebanon (2005, 2011). Having begun in 2003 in Georgia, where the strategy and tactics of carrying out a coup d'etat were worked out, “color” revolutions were then tested for 11 years in another 22 countries. Moreover, six countries are states that were previously part of the USSR, which may indicate a future focus on the Russian Federation. In 11 states, attempts ended without a change in government power, but one cannot be sure that attempts will not be repeated.

Such “color” revolutions are called “hybrid wars.” The word “hybrid” means some newly produced product that arises as a result of crossing different types of a given product. “Hybrid warfare” is a term proposed at the end of the 20th century in the United States to describe a military strategy that combines conventional war, insurgency and information operations against a specific country.

All countries are members of the UN, and direct intervention of the armed forces of one state in the affairs of another is unacceptable and will be condemned by the world community, therefore, in a political enemy state, groups of people and organizations hostile to state power are formed, which first use peaceful and then military means begin to fight for power. Non-state formations, when using weapons, do not comply with any international agreements or the provisions of the Geneva Convention. Under certain conditions, such organizations and groups are provided with weapons, financial and material resources, etc. This, in short, is the essence of such a war.

At the same time, through modern information technologies and especially the Internet, a number of countries are waging an uncompromising war, convincing the population that the heads of the state are people who have usurped power and after their removal from power, the population will live much better than at present. As a result of the information impact, the country's population becomes disoriented, after which mass protests begin. Moreover, it should be noted that the share of information impact and propaganda in new generation wars reaches 80% of the time of the entire confrontation, while in a traditional war it is no more than 20%.

However, the experience of even our country shows that after such revolutions (1917, 1991) it takes about 20 years to restore the country’s economy, and this with huge human losses.

The direction of the hybrid war against our country is confirmed by the words of US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, which he said on August 20, 2015 at a briefing at the Pentagon: “We are adjusting our capabilities taking into account this behavior of Russia. We are also working in new ways with NATO members and non-NATO members, shifting towards hybrid warfare and achieving influence.”

The theory of hybrid warfare, developed in the depths of the Pentagon, which, in essence, is a combination of traditional and irregular, allows experiments to change state power in any countries that are not able to understand the current political situation in time and, accordingly, have not taken the necessary measures. It can be noted that the methods and methods of waging wars of a new type are changing very quickly.

First of all, achieving goals in new types of wars is carried out in combination with the use of military force or without it. Thus, the adoption by the UN Security Council on March 17, 2011 of Resolution No. 1973 on the protection of the Libyan population from the ruling regime set in motion the direct participation of NATO countries in the armed invasion. Military force is used extremely rarely in new generation wars; replacing state power without direct armed intervention is considered more promising.

In wars of this type, the first stage uses a set of indirect actions, the so-called “hybrid methods” of influence, within which:

• psychological, political, economic and informational pressure is exerted on the enemy;
• measures are being taken to disorient the political and military leadership of the state during a planned operation to change the legitimate government;
• there is a build-up of discontent among the population;
• Armed opposition units are being trained and deployed to the conflict area.

All these events are being held against the backdrop of increased diplomatic pressure and propaganda influence on the world community. In addition, there is the covert deployment and use of special operations forces, cyber attacks and software and hardware influence, massive reconnaissance and subversive actions, support for internal opposition and the use of new weapons systems.

The image of the enemy for the victim state is a “phantom enemy”, which does not have clear identification features (state, national, racial affiliation), the structural elements of which are located on the territory of various states that are not formally parties to the military conflict.

If these actions do not lead to a change of power, then the interested party moves on to classical methods of warfare using various types of weapons in combination with massive information impact. To do this, the enemy’s territory is captured with the simultaneous impact (defeat) of troops and objects throughout the entire depth of its territory (operational formation of force groups).

For this purpose, the large-scale use of special operations forces and the massive use of high-precision weapons, used mainly by aviation and naval means, are initially carried out. In the future, robotic systems and weapons based on new physical principles may be used to carry out an attack and, in general, an information-electronic fire operation will be carried out.

Then a classic offensive is carried out on enemy territory by ground forces, eliminating pockets of resistance with the help of artillery and missile and bomb strikes, launching high-tech weapons strikes, and landing troops. The operation ends with the establishment of complete control over the state subject to aggression.

It should be noted that the main party interested in changing power in the country is trying not to resort to the direct use of force. She skillfully ensures her interests by acting “from behind the curtain,” provoking the conflicting parties to actively hostile actions.

Information warfare is based on the massive dissemination of information through its falsification, substitution or distortion in order to achieve political or military goals.

The peculiarity of waging wars of a new type is that the confrontation that arises at the initial stage is not perceived by the masses as a war, since there are no obvious signs of external aggression (for example, Ukraine).

Thus, the conflict in Libya began with unrest in February 2011, and its cause is associated with the overthrow of the ruling regimes in the neighboring states of Tunisia and Egypt. Subsequently, the unrest took the form of civil war. The reasons for the unrest can be considered, on the one hand, the underdeveloped institution of civil rights and freedoms, and on the other, the growth of corruption, which contributed to a decrease in the standard of living of the population due to oil revenues. And all this despite the fact that the policies of the Gaddafi regime caused discord among the tribes of Libya.

For example, in Tripolitania the majority of the population supported his rule, but in Cyrenaica, on the contrary, the majority was in opposition to the leader of the state. However, the truth of the official reasons is highly doubtful, since, using these reasons, Western intelligence agencies organized an uprising in Libya.

The uprising itself began on February 15 with an incident in Benghazi, with demonstrators coordinating their actions through social Internet networks. Already February 17 was called the day of anger, and mass protests against the authorities took place in four cities, and in the capital, on the contrary, in support of Gaddafi.

Analyzing the events in Ukraine during protests on the Maidan, the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Colonel General A. V. Kartapolov, at a meeting of the Academy of Military Sciences in 2015, said: “It can be stated that the front line in modern military conflicts is , first of all, in the public consciousness and in the head of every person.” Since part of the population does not have a clear idea of ​​the place and role of each person in solving the problems of the state, they are easy to manipulate, saying that through anti-government protests it is possible to achieve a significant increase in the standard of living and general well-being.

Of course, the lack of a clear ideological orientation among some of the country’s citizens condones the creation of extremist organizations, such as in Ukraine, for example, the Right Sector, which is banned on the territory of the Russian Federation. It is with the help of militants of such organizations that a change of political regime is carried out. In addition, representatives of private military companies often participate in armed uprisings and demonstrations sponsored by political and non-profit organizations (NPOs). Currently, there are 52 political organizations in Russia that are recognized as foreign agents, and their funding comes from abroad. In Russia in 2014 alone, more than four thousand NPOs were identified. The amount of their financing amounted to more than 70 billion rubles, and in the last year alone it has increased 17.5 times.

Only the timely suppression of protests by units of the national armed forces can stop the bloodshed and lawlessness. Thus, in Eastern Libya, from February 18 to 20, 2011, uprisings occurred that local law enforcement services were unable to suppress. The outbreak of the war was facilitated by the actions of the Libyan army, many of which went over to the side of the rebels.

In addition, the sources of the conflict’s growth are the flow of foreign mercenaries and radical militants. It is these people who make up a significant part of the Islamic State army. According to some reports, in the armed conflict in Syria, up to 80% of the militant groups are foreign citizens. From Russia alone their number reaches 2,300 people.

And, of course, special operations forces of foreign states and private military companies take an active part in conflicts. In addition, large quantities of weapons are supplied to the opposition through third countries and non-governmental organizations, while the perpetrators of such disasters themselves deploy missions of humanitarian organizations. And the result is the collapse of the country: hunger, lawlessness, poverty and a humanitarian catastrophe.

Without a doubt, modern war is increasingly acquiring the character of genocide - the mass extermination of “undesirable” populations, ethno-confessional intolerance. And this is not surprising. In Libya in 2011, the NATO bloc lost about 2,500 people, while at the same time more than 50,000 civilians died.

The results of the armed struggle in Syria are even more disappointing. In 2011 alone, its armed forces lost about 56,000 people, the armed opposition about 63,000, and more than 115,000 civilians died. Currently, losses among the civilian population have increased significantly and, according to various estimates, range from 250 thousand to 1 million people, resulting in an endless stream of refugees from the country.

An important factor in a hybrid war is the intervention of security forces of foreign states in order to “prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and stabilize the situation.” Thus, starting on March 6, 2011 in Libya, Gaddafi’s troops managed to seize the initiative and launch a counteroffensive on the Eastern Front against the rebels.

Already on March 20, 2011, without UN permission, US troops launched an offensive from the territory of Tunisia, which had become pro-Western, conducting Operation Odyssey. Dawn,” and on March 21, the air forces of France, Great Britain and the United States began to strike Gaddafi’s troops. The main tasks solved during the operation were: establishing a no-fly zone, monitoring the embargo regime and coordinating and ensuring the actions of armed opposition groups.

An important point is the length of some hybrid wars. Thus, in Libya and Syria, it began in 2011 and continues to this day, that is, grueling military operations have been ongoing for four years, as a result of which the countries have suffered huge human and material losses, and their future is very uncertain.

In conclusion, it is necessary to note the importance of understanding the events of hybrid wars and the importance of dialogue. After all, we are talking about a global threat, about the use of technologies to destroy international principles and security standards, and international law. There is a phenomenon that the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin spoke about - “supralegal legitimacy”, when direct mockery of human rights and state sovereignty is justified by some expediency, and obviously illegal and even criminal actions are given the status of legitimacy through information technology - a system of manipulation of public consciousness, enabling a well-functioning system of false information.

Today the most important thing is to understand what the role of the army is in such a war. This is especially true for the Russian army, which has always maintained a position of neutrality in matters of confrontation during the change of power. Apparently, the issues of using the army in a hybrid war should be constitutionally reviewed, its functions and the responsibilities of the leaders of military formations should be more strictly defined.

In addition, it is necessary to open a discussion in the military press, at conferences of military educational institutions on the essence of hybrid warfare, understanding the methods and methods of its conduct, its relationships with cyber warfare, network, information, cognitive warfare, and cognitive-centric actions. It is necessary to think about the need to make changes to the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation and the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, taking into account the influence of new types of wars. And of course, a theory of military counteraction at various levels of warfare and various stages of hybrid warfare must be developed.

The Armed Forces need to understand their place and role in the period of hybrid war. We need a clear legislative framework defining the order of behavior of units and formations in these conditions. Today it is important to objectively perceive the current situation, to consider any social and economic phenomenon, first of all, from the position of a citizen of Russia.

Jen Psaki (right) is convinced that the development of information technology is turning information warfare into one of the most effective means of waging wars of the new generation. Photo from www.state.gov

The weakening of the modern global security system, its deformation and fragmentation lead to increasing chaos in international relations. The avalanche-like development of this process is facilitated by color revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa, and more recently in Ukraine. International conflicts are escalating, network forms of international terrorism are gaining strength, the source of resources for which is Afghan drug trafficking and organized crime. The United States, in its quest for global hegemony, is using the opportunities this creates to weaken strategic competitors, primarily China and the European Union.

GLOBAL CRITICALITY IN THE MODERN WORLD

As a result, the world is rapidly plunging into the chaos of large and small wars, ethnopolitical and religious conflicts. Within the framework of the system of international relations, a global criticality is created that can undermine the fundamental foundations of the existing world order.

The increasing contradictory nature of globalization processes indicates serious defects in the international security system. In conditions of an avalanche-like increase in the problems and contradictions generated by globalization, the “element” of globalization is getting out of control and leading to chaos in international relations.

This is facilitated by one of the important properties of the system of international relations itself, which lies in its non-equilibrium nature and in the inherent desire for chaos.

The famous American neorealist political scientist Kenneth Waltz warned about this property: “Systems within states are centralized and hierarchical... International systems are decentralized and anarchic.”

In relation to the problem considered in this article, the conclusion of the American political scientist is methodological in nature, since the proposed principle of international anarchy as a characteristic of the system of international relations determines the foreign policy strategies of states. One of these strategies includes the strategy of creating controlled chaos, developed in the United States and actively used in various countries and regions, which makes it possible to hide the true goals of the aggressor state behind a set of seemingly unrelated actions leading to chaos in the entire region or in individual victim state.

The United States considers chaos “manageable” and sees it as a new tool for promoting its national interests under the pretext of democratizing the modern world. Other countries, including Russia, view this process as a general disaster that can lead to a global catastrophe.

The American strategy of using criticality in the national interests of the United States was frankly outlined back in 1998 by one of the developers of the theory of controlled chaos, Stephen Mann: “I would like to make one wish: we should be open to the opportunity to strengthen and exploit criticality if it suits our national interests - for example , while destroying the Iraqi military machine and Saddam's state. Here our national interest takes precedence over international stability. In fact, whether we realize it or not, we are already taking steps to increase chaos when we promote democracy, market reforms, and the development of mass media through the private sector.”

It is worth paying attention to the unconditionally declared thesis about the highest priority of the national interests of one’s own country. For everyone else, please don't worry...

One of the consequences of the emerging criticality in the field of international relations is the emergence of new types of conflicts, including those taking place using non-military methods to achieve political and strategic goals in the fight against the enemy. In the initial stage, such conflicts take place based on the protest potential of the population during the so-called color revolutions, which are a combination of subversive technologies for the non-violent seizure of power. Such technologies worked, for example, in 2004 in Ukraine and made it possible to keep the country on track for the West for several years.

However, then, for a number of reasons, there were some changes in the position of the Ukrainian elites, and forces again came to power that did not fully suit the customers of the previous color revolution. The next revolution developed according to different laws and ultimately led to civil confrontation in the country, which, according to the terminology proposed by the United States and NATO, can be classified as hybrid wars. The term implies a wide range of hostile actions that are undertaken as part of a flexible strategy with long-term goals. These strategies are based on the integrated use of diplomatic, informational, military and economic means to destabilize the enemy (A. Bartosh. Hybrid war in the strategy of the United States and NATO. See “NVO” dated 10.10.14).

HYBRID WAR IN FORECASTS AND PLANS OF THE USA AND NATO

Today, a number of official documents of the US Army are devoted to the development of issues of conducting hybrid warfare and countering hybrid threats, including the White Paper of the US Army Special Operations Command “Countering Unconventional Warfare” and the US Army operational concept “Winning in a Complex World”.

By hybrid warfare, the US military means undeclared, covert military actions, during which the belligerent attacks state structures or the enemy's regular army with the help of local rebels and separatists, supported by weapons and finances from abroad and some internal structures (oligarchs, organized crime, nationalist and pseudo-religious organizations).

The US and NATO documents say that while the armed forces play a fundamental role in successfully confronting hybrid wars, states should combine the efforts of their governments, armies and intelligence services under US auspices as part of a “comprehensive interagency, intergovernmental and international strategy” and make the most effective use of “political , economic, military and psychological pressure.” These and some other documents note that hybrid warfare is the use of a combination of conventional, irregular and asymmetric means combined with the constant manipulation of political and ideological conflict.

In a geopolitical context, hybrid warfare is a relatively new concept, applied primarily in the field of special forces operations, and combining the experience of tough confrontations with emerging threats to international security and lessons learned in the fight against extremism of state and non-state actors. Hybrid warfare is fought both by forces operating within a country or region that seek to weaken or overthrow a government, and by external forces. The actions of external forces consist of assisting the rebels in recruiting supporters and training them, operational and logistical support, influencing the economy and social sphere, coordinating diplomatic efforts, as well as carrying out individual military actions. For these purposes, special operations forces, intelligence, organized crime are involved, large-scale informational psychological influence is carried out on the population, personnel of the armed forces and law enforcement agencies, and government agencies using the entire range of information and communication technologies.

In recent years, hybrid wars have been fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Georgia, and now in Ukraine. A new form of unconventional warfare by non-state actors is the actions of ISIS.

Taking into account the peculiarities of a hybrid war, the government’s task is to organize counteraction through the integrated synergistic use of diplomatic, informational, economic, financial, and legal resources of the state together with military force. According to recently retired US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, it is now not only states that have access to destructive technologies and powerful weapons, but also “non-state actors.” “The specter of so-called hybrid warfare is growing ever more real as our adversaries employ insurgent tactics while employing highly equipped militaries and sophisticated technology.” At the same time, the minister stated that “The requirements for the (US) army will become increasingly diverse and complex. The threat from terrorists and insurgents will continue to exist for us for a long time, but we also must deal with revisionist Russia, with its modern and combat-ready army.”

FACTORS FOR ACHIEVEMENT OF CRITICALITY

Forecasts for the development of the international situation over the next few decades developed by the United States and NATO are united by the conclusion about growing global instability. According to the Americans, from the point of view of ensuring the national security of the state, the following factors will play a significant role:

– the increasing role of non-state actors with a simultaneous increase in the number of possible political-military combinations, including state and non-state actors;

– diffusion of power in a multipolar world against the backdrop of the spread of information and military technologies;

– demographic changes, including accelerated urbanization;

– increased competition for access to global resources.

At the same time, the threat of interstate conflicts with the use of modern types of precision weapons remains, while the role of nuclear weapons as a means of deterrence remains intact. The presence of such trends requires the country and armed forces to be prepared to participate in a wide range of possible classic and irregular conflicts, including hybrid wars.

The diffusion of global power is a consequence of the formation of a multipolar world, which contributes to the development of geopolitical instability. According to current forecasts, by 2030, the formation of a single center of power is not expected, which will make existing alliances unstable, and relations between states will be characterized by a greater degree of hostility than before.

The diffusion of global power will also manifest itself in the increasing role of non-state actors, who will strive to exert greater influence both at the local and global levels. Threats associated with the spread of information and military technologies will increase, which will allow individuals and small groups to gain access to various types of lethal weapons, especially precision and biological weapons, the so-called dirty bomb, which can create radioactive contamination over large areas of the terrain, as well as to various hazardous chemicals and cyber technologies. In this way, extremists and criminal groups will be able to break the state monopoly on the large-scale use of violence.

The complex impact of these factors leads to the emergence of a new type of threats - hybrid threats, the sources of which can be both states and other entities. The peculiarity of this type of threat is that it is clearly aimed at the previously revealed weaknesses and vulnerabilities of a particular country or a particular region.

Developing a combat strategy, planning and creating countermeasures must take into account the important role of external support in hybrid wars. General methods of countering hybrid wars come down to reliably cutting off the channels of financing subversive forces, using diplomatic means to isolate and punish sponsor states, targeting all types of intelligence to uncover and identify leaders and infrastructure as priority targets for their destruction with “surgical” strikes of high-precision weapons.

Unlike anti-terrorist operations, a significant range of which is carried out in a short time, the time frame for planning, implementing and coordinating actions in a hybrid war is much wider. If a convincing measure of success in an anti-terrorist operation can be the destruction or capture of leaders, then in a hybrid war there are no such obvious indicators. To assess the results of such a war, one must resort to a comparison of territories controlled by rebels and government forces.

Successful planning and interaction requires the development and coordination of terminology used at all stages of preparation and conduct of war.

In a hybrid war, the most important role belongs to public diplomacy, which is capable of exerting the necessary influence on the parties to the conflict in order to give events the desired direction. At the same time, counteraction to enemy information attacks is organized.

In general, in preparation for participation in a hybrid war, an appropriate long-term military-political strategy is being formed as the basis for countering the enemy, a special body is being created to coordinate efforts at all levels, from strategic national to tactical, and fundamental approaches are being developed for the effective and covert use of special operations forces and striking with precision weapons. Areas that could be covered by a hybrid war are carefully identified, and all their characteristics are first studied.

MANAGING HYBRID WAR

Particular attention is paid to the formation of regional and global bodies for managing hybrid warfare. When applied to the United States at the strategic level, they could, for example, cover the regions of responsibility of the US European, Central and Pacific Combat Commands. Such bodies, by nature, must also be hybrid in nature, have flexibility and the ability to adapt from the tactical to the strategic level, appropriate personnel, communication and information exchange systems, and the ability to interact with partners. The presence of such bodies will speed up the planning process and reduce reaction time, taking into account the extremely rapid development of the situation in a hybrid war. The core of such bodies is formed mainly by special operations forces, while the operational art and planning methods of the forces themselves also need to be adapted.

In general, the creation of a reliable and effective control system for a new type of war is possible through a serious restructuring of the entire system of state and military control bodies to give them the necessary hybrid properties, increasing the efficiency and flexibility of control. An important place is given to decision-making procedures for the use of military force, taking into account the difficult to predict transformations of the borders of areas covered by a hybrid war.

Particular attention is expected to be paid to the issues of conducting hybrid warfare operations in remote theaters. Such operations may include a civil-military component, intelligence, population and resource control, and the use of advisors.

INTELLIGENCE IN HYBRID WAR

Reconnaissance in a hybrid war is a vital type of combat support, is of a hybrid nature and combines the entire complex of available forces and means, the task of which is to reveal the enemy’s mobilization system, his weak points and bottlenecks in war-torn areas, and the organization of his intelligence and agencies propaganda, transport and logistics support. A special feature of intelligence activities in a hybrid war is the need to obtain information about hidden subversive elements that operate in a network consisting of isolated cells. In this context, it seems that in regions covered by a hybrid war, it may be useful to create unique reconnaissance and strike groups, which can consist of isolated reconnaissance and strike-sabotage cells, each of which can solve a range of relevant tasks, have its own channels of operational, reliable and secretive communication system. The isolation of such cells will contribute to their survival in conditions of intense action. Let us note that the leadership of the French Resistance came to the conclusion about the need for strict isolation of reconnaissance and sabotage units after many failures in the initial period of World War II.

The complex of intelligence tasks in a hybrid war differs significantly from intelligence tasks in a conventional interstate conflict and requires, in particular, the organization of collecting seemingly insignificant information in the context of the enemy’s use of asymmetric approaches. The processing and assessment of such information, which at first glance does not have obvious political or military significance, can be entrusted to an effective and highly professional analytical service created on hybrid principles, including not only the military, but also humanists, linguists, regional scientists, psychologists, economists, and financiers. It is important to have specialists with knowledge of foreign languages ​​and the national psychological characteristics of the population of the relevant countries and regions.

CONCLUSIONS FOR RUSSIA

Domestic politicians, military leaders and experts are talking about the growing range of unconventional challenges and threats to Russia’s national security. “The world is changing... New regional and local wars are breaking out before our eyes. Zones of instability and artificially fueled, controlled chaos are emerging... We see how the basic principles of international law have been devalued and destroyed. Especially in the field of international security,” Vladimir Putin pointed out in his policy article “Being strong: a guarantee of Russia’s national security,” published in the central press on February 20, 2012.

Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Army General Valery Gerasimov, at the military-scientific conference of the Academy of Military Sciences in January 2014, noted: “The role of non-military methods of achieving political and strategic goals, which in some cases are significantly more effective than military means, has increased. They are complemented by covert military measures, including information warfare activities, the actions of special operations forces, and the use of the protest potential of the population.”

According to an authoritative Russian military expert, Army General Yuri Baluevsky, the potential possibility of using transnational, illegal (irregular) armed groups for the purpose of forcibly changing the existing state system and violating the territorial integrity of the state remains, and such a development of events cannot be excluded in the foreseeable future for Russia. In this regard, the potential danger of a sharp aggravation of internal problems with subsequent escalation to the level of internal armed conflict is a real threat to the stability and territorial integrity of our country in the medium term.

In these conditions, there is a need to reflect in the doctrinal documents of the Russian Federation, including the Military Doctrine, the challenges, risks, dangers and threats associated with the preparation of a potential enemy to wage a new type of war against our country - hybrid wars. The enemy is developing complexes of hybrid threats for use against Russia and its allies, each of which is based on careful consideration of all the features of the proposed area where the war will break out.

Attention should also be paid to the problems of information warfare as an integral part of hybrid warfare. In this regard, it is necessary to constantly and deeply monitor the development of information technology, as well as to improve and modernize the protection systems of the entire state and military infrastructure of Russia, and create mechanisms for identifying and suppressing information and psychological influence on the population of the Russian Federation.

All steps to ensure Russia’s national security in a changing world should be based on predictive assessments. There is no doubt about the difficulty of forecasting in conditions of modern turbulence. However, equally undeniable is the task of developing scientifically based forecasts that will provide information about what political and military goals are achievable for the state and its allies; create a basis for choosing a solution in the presence of alternative political and military goals; reveal the consequences of political and military decisions, identify points of social tension and threats to socio-political stability and thus prevent possible conflicts.

In preparing the country and its armed forces to counter modern threats, including hybrid war and hybrid threats, an important role belongs to political forecasting as an integral part of social forecasting and at the same time an important basis for developing political and military decisions. The results of the forecast will make it possible to show the directions of political changes, transformation of the sphere of military security and social development strategies. The development of such forecasts is provided for by the Federal Law of the Russian Federation of June 28, 2014 “On Strategic Planning in the Russian Federation.” In particular, the strategic forecast must contain an assessment of risks and threats to Russia's national security.

Such a forecast can be based on a problem-target approach, in which extrapolation into the future of observed trends in the development of the phenomena under study provides a general vision of emerging problems and contributes to the search for an effective solution to them. It is important that when forecasting, the interrelation of risks to national security is taken into account not only in the military sphere, but also in the field of socio-economic, information, finance, etc.

New geopolitical realities, determined by a significant transformation in the range of challenges, risks, dangers and threats to Russia's national security, have created an urgent need to revise a number of fundamental provisions of the country's Military Doctrine. At the same time, it is hardly worth subjecting the entire doctrine in force since 2010 to a radical revision. A number of its provisions remain relevant today. This fully concerns the development and possible use of nuclear weapons systems. Feverish activity to reshape existing strategic plans is unacceptable here.

Along with this, today it is necessary to adjust a number of its provisions in connection with a radical revision by the United States and NATO of the entire complex of their relations with Russia based on increasing the power component in their policy, the adoption of sanctions, including the defense-industrial sector of our country’s economy. It is necessary to adopt a proactive system of measures in the context of plans for possible further expansion of NATO, preparations for hybrid wars, increasing the bloc’s military presence near Russia’s borders, including the deployment of missile defense in Europe, and plans for large military exercises. There is a need for a strategic analysis of all aspects of the situation in Ukraine, a forecast of its development and taking into account the results obtained in military planning. There are other very alarming developments in the world that require consideration in military doctrine.

It is advisable to involve the expert community in forecasting and make the public more widely aware of expert opinions. In this context, I would like to wish success to the independent expert-analytical center “Epoch”, which, together with the editors of the “Independent Military Review”, held several productive meetings of experts on the problems of modern conflicts.

Release:

Bibliographic description of the article for citation:

Pozubenkov P. S., Pozubenkov S. P. Hybrid wars in the modern information space // Scientific and methodological electronic journal “Concept”. – 2016. – T. 11. – P. 1121–1125..htm.

Annotation.“Hybrid war” is a modern type of war, which is waged not so much by military equipment, but by the forces of political propaganda, terror, disinformation and economic pressure on the enemy. “Hybrid warfare” also includes the subversive activities of intelligence services on enemy territory and various techniques for distorting information. This article summarizes theoretical sources on the main elements of hybrid military impact.

Article text

Pozubenkov Sergey Petrovich, master's student of the Penza State Agricultural Academy, Penza

Scientific supervisor – Pozubenkov Petr Sergeevich, candidate of historical sciences, associate professor of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education "Penza State Agricultural Academy", Penza [email protected]

Hybrid wars in the modern information space

Abstract: “Hybrid war” is a modern type of war, which is waged not only by military equipment, but by the forces of political propaganda, terror, disinformation and economic pressure on the enemy. “Hybrid warfare” also includes the subversive activities of intelligence services on enemy territory and various techniques for distorting information. This article summarizes theoretical sources about the main elements of hybrid military influence. Key words: world domination, distortion of information, opposition, pressure.

In political science, “hybrid war” refers to the simultaneous use of geopolitical spaces of all types as a theater of military operations. In each of the established types of geopolitical spaces, a “hybrid war” is waged using institutions, resources and technologies corresponding to a specific type of geopolitical space. Currently, the dominant geopolitical space is information-ideological. Consequently, in order to gain or maintain world domination, institutions and technologies for controlling mass consciousness are of greatest importance. “Hybrid war” covers the entire population, fills niches in the information space, including print and electronic media, cyber attacks, organizing seminars, training courses with lectures for supporters of opposition movements and so on. It extends to a variety of spheres of public life - political, economic, social, cultural. Its target is the mental component and the very system of social organization of the enemy. Ultimately, “hybrid wars” are not only armed conflicts that have no limits in time, space or means used. Their main difference is that they blur the boundaries separating war from other forms of political, economic or ideological confrontation. One of the significant features of the “hybrid war” is the disregard for all norms of morality and ethics, the use of the dirtiest social technologies, including the spread of rumors, lies, slander, distortion of facts, and falsification of history. This war draws the entire population into antagonism and covers all spheres of public life: politics, economics, social development, culture. As part of this strategy, the United States provides support through illegal action for the political opposition, which uses violent methods to overthrow the legitimate government. In addition, they use “hybrid wars” to undermine the sovereignty of the state from within in order to subsequently place them under direct external control. In most cases, the result was the economic and political weakening of states. “Hybrid wars” deal a significant blow to social stability and lead to internal political tension. Thus, the “hybrid wars” waged by the United States are aimed at weakening or destroying the “rising” powers of the increasingly polycentric world. It is no coincidence that states such as Russia, Iran, the BRICS countries, and Venezuela are under attack. The events in Ukraine are viewed not as an end, but as the first stage aimed at destabilizing the situation in Russia. There is a great danger of transferring this to the republics of the Central Asian region, which will also become a challenge to Russia’s security. There is a high probability that “hybrid war” technologies can be used against China, in particular in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. Currently, the United States, faced with the erosion of the economic foundation of its global dominance, is seeking to compensate for this by increasing pressure and, as a result, weakening its competitors. This situation makes the United States interested in a world war. However, at the present stage, waging a world war using traditional weapons seems extremely risky due to the possibility of using weapons of mass destruction. In return, the United States is implementing a strategy aimed at unleashing a series of regional wars and political conflicts. Taken together, these wars and conflicts, from the point of view of S.Yu. Glazyeva

- Advisor to the President, form a “global hybrid war”, during which competitors can either be destroyed or destabilized and significantly weakened. In this way, Americans solve their own economic problems. Today we can say that Russia is striving to counteract the unilateral interpretation of the concept of this war. Russian media indicate that “hybrid war” technologies are often used by the United States. In order to convey the Russian point of view to the international community, the Sputnik project was launched in November 2014 by the Rossiya Segodnya news agency. Its peculiarity is that information production centers will be located and operate directly on the territory of the countries receiving this information. To weaken their main competitors, among which Russia and China occupy the first place, the Americans are actively using the strategy of indirect action and the technology of creating “controlled chaos” by organizing “color revolutions.” But not only these countries are involved by the West in the orbit of “hybrid wars”. In Colombia and Mexico, the US uses drug cartels to maintain a certain level of control over instability. And in Libya and Syria, armed opposition forces are supported. Information resources and their agents in Georgia, Armenia and Ukraine are in a state of readiness to organize new “color revolutions”. All means of geopolitical confrontation are fully used here: economic sanctions, embargoes, transport blockades, genocide of civilians, destruction of economic infrastructure, terrorist attacks and information and psychological operations.

The combination of new and traditional forms, means and methods of confrontation is also characteristic of the civil war in Donbass. It meets the interests of radical forces in Europe and especially in the USA. These forces do not hide that the current situation in Ukraine is part of a geopolitical offensive against Russia, with its main goal of weakening its domestic and international positions and, ultimately, changing its political system. Economic sanctions against Russia, attempts to oust it from international trade and political markets, distortions of history and discrediting the decisive contribution of the Soviet people to the victory over fascism in World War II are elements of a global offensive against our country, in which “hybrid warfare” plays an important role. The likelihood of a classic war against Russia today is small, but for the same reason: the preservation and strengthening by our country of its Armed Forces and means, including nuclear potential, guaranteeing the infliction of unacceptable damage to any aggressor. However, the desire of the United States to maintain a world order that meets its interests at any cost is pushing political elites to use new forms and means in the fight against dissent that go beyond the traditional form of war. An important role is given to a method that combines support for existing armed conflicts, ideological aggression, economic sanctions, attempts at political isolation with the search for new internal political vulnerabilities, the use of advanced information technologies, etc. “Hybrid war” is becoming a reality that is difficult to deny and which actualizes the need to study their essence and the possibilities of countering them in defending the interests of the Russian Federation. The understanding that war is an evolving reality led to the need to clarify at the end of 2014 some provisions of the Russian military doctrine .The movement of military operations into the information space led to the appearance in the military doctrine of the Russian Federation in 2014 of a clause on the use of information and communication technologies for military-political purposes to counter actions contrary to international law, directed against the sovereignty, political independence, and territorial integrity of the state. A clause was added to the doctrine about the tendency of military dangers and threats to shift to the internal sphere. Among the new internal dangers are activities aimed at forcibly changing the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, informational influence on the population, primarily on young citizens of the country, with the aim of undermining historical, spiritual and patriotic traditions in the field of defense of the Fatherland. Fundamental in the new document remains the provision that Russia will resort to the use of military force to repel aggression against it and its allies, maintain peace by decision of the UN Security Council, as well as to ensure the protection of its citizens located outside the Russian Federation, in accordance with generally recognized principles and norms of international law.

In the modern historical period, a global form of conscientious war is unfolding, i.e. e. the process of replacing the basic values ​​of the mass consciousness of a certain society to ensure its latent controllability from the outside. Conscientious war has several forms of implementation. Among the key ones are the so-called “archaeological war” and “rewriting history”, as well as the desacralization of the prophets and the basic postulates of world religions. One cannot help but see that over the past 10–15 years the global process of the so-called “archaeological war” has been actively unfolding, i.e. ... deliberate destruction of historical and cultural monuments of a certain civilization: buildings, works of art and written sources - on several continents at the same time. The destruction of civilization undermines the basis for the functioning of a given geocivilization, and at the same time all the states corresponding to it to the extent that they have absorbed the values ​​of the “mother civilization.” The key mother cultures of humanity are the cultures of the Near and Middle East, India, China and Mesoamerica. It is precisely these targets that the blows of the social war in the form of archaeological war are directed at. Thus, during the Iraqi war, the museums of Baghdaday and Basra were looted. The National Library of Iraq was burned. Looting in the museums of Baghdad and Basra received the following comment from former US Secretary of Defense D. Rumsfeld: “Iraq is going through a transition period from a police state to a democratic one. The people received freedom and the right to do those actions that they consider necessary. The US military is aware of its responsibility for security, but it does not intend to take on the functions of police officers. Meanwhile, the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property during Armed Conflict (adopted in The Hague on May 14, 1954) prohibits (Article 4, paragraph 1) the use of architectural monuments of history and culture “for purposes that could lead to the destruction or damage of these valuables during the armed conflict. During the Arab Spring, the Cairo Museum of Antiquities, museums and treasuries of the National Bank of Libya were looted. Radicals of the Islamic State destroyed ancient artifacts in the cities, monasteries and museums of Syria. During modern armed conflicts, Christian churches and shrines are always destroyed. Thus, the purposeful elimination of the material memory of humanity is being carried out. Distortion of the history of the Second World War is an important component of the global information war, namely, the fight against the Orthodox-Slavic civilization, as the basis for the development of Russia, the main state of this civilization. In terms of civilization, rewriting the history of World War II and hushing up or distorting the real role of Russia in the victory over Nazi Germany is aimed at imposing on the mass consciousness the perception of our geocivilization through the following characteristics: aggressiveness, immorality, authoritarian thinking and activity, civilizational non-competitiveness. Thus, the Russians are denied the status of a great people, i.e. a people who previously and are currently making a significant contribution to the progressive development of mankind. Consequently, the Russian people must “listen to their elders,” i.e. to submit to the truly great European peoples, bearers of the most progressive principles of human existence. Russia must completely abandon the principles of Orthodoxy and collectivism and base its civilizational development on the principles of a liberal worldview. Rewriting the history of the Second World War is intended to impose on the mass consciousness of Europeans, Americans and Russians the idea of ​​Russians not only as a people - losers, but also as a people - criminals. The main directions of the rewritten history of the Second World War are as follows: 1. Hitler's Germany and the USSR are equally to blame for the outbreak of the war ; Nazism and communism are doctrines of equal magnitude in their inhumane essence. 2. The winners of the Second World War are the USA and Great Britain. Accordingly, the key battles of the Second World War were the battle of El Alamein in Africa and the Midwayne Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. 3. Anglo-American troops fought the war humanely, while Hitler and Soviet troops committed many war crimes. 4. After the Second World War, the USSR actually occupied several countries of Eastern Europe, and he annexed some of them, thus annexing them to his territory, using the “right of force.” Now every post-socialist and post-Soviet country must have a “museum of the Soviet occupation” with relevant exhibits. Since Russia is the legal successor of the USSR, as well as the actual continuator of the aggressive foreign policy of the USSR (Yatsenyuk said that the USSR attacked Germany and Ukraine), modern Russia constantly manifests its aggressive essence in various forms towards all its neighbors. Russia's aggression must be stopped by the progressive global world, i.e. Anglo-Saxons and their allies, and for this, first of all, it is necessary to change the political regime and the President of the country, which is the main source of political authoritarianism and political aggression in modern Russia. An active “archaeological war” is being waged against monuments to Soviet soldiers in all European countries: monuments are destroyed, desecrated, and, at best, transferred from the center to the outskirts. The main propaganda impact is aimed at young people. It is the young generation, subjected to powerful pressure today, that will be the bulk of the population most countries in a few years, and working with it in advance allows us to form the necessary mass perceptions in the short and medium term. The distortion of the history of the Second World War against Russia is a direct consequence of two main historical factors. Firstly, the disappearance of the USSR as a global center of power, which is tantamount to destruction historical monuments during the “archaeological war”: the visible, tangible winner in the Second World War disappeared. Russia, of course, is the legal successor, but today there is a different political and economic system, different legislation, and a different official ideology. Secondly, after defeat in the Cold War, Russia began to emerge from a state of geopolitical humiliation and is taking concrete steps to regain the status of a great power, including actions to return its former historical territories. It is important to take into account such a socio-psychological factor as the unheroic behavior of European countries in the matter of resistance German fascism. Poland resisted the invasion from September 1, 1939 to October 6 of that year. Denmark fought Hitler's troops for one hour on April 9, 1940, killing two German soldiers and wounding ten, after which the king ordered the troops not to resist. Norway confronted Germany from April 9 to May 2, 1940. The offensive of Nazi troops against France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg began on May 10, 1940. Luxembourg surrendered on May 11, the Netherlands capitulated on May 14, Belgium on May 26, France held out the longest and capitulated on June 21, 1940. And only the Soviet Union fought almost single-handedly against the invading troops of Nazi Germany and its European allies for four years (June 22, 1941–May 9, 1945) and ended this war with the capture of Berlin and the capitals of several states allied to Germany. The gap was marked not only with the Soviet period, but also with the entire history of Russia, including the post-Soviet one. The Ukrainian elite constantly emphasized this. L. Kuchma in his book “Ukraine is not Russia” designated national identity as negative in relation to Russia. During the reign of V. Yushchenko, the departure from Russia acquired the tone of a nationalist anti-Russian ideology. L. Kravchuk stated in 2010 that Ukraine and Russia are not partners. Ukrainian school history textbooks also played a role. The politicization of relations with the people of Russia is also noticeable in the so-called “memory wars.” The goal of such strategies is the rupture of a single cultural space, the deformation of historical memory, the replacement of Soviet symbols of Victory in the Great Patriotic War with our own, true Ukrainian ones. Among such actions is the creation and promotion under V. Yushchenko of the mythology of the “Holodomor” as a deliberate genocide of Ukrainians by Soviet power. This category also includes manipulations with the holiday date of May 9: the adoption of a special act declaring May 8 a holiday. In Ukraine, a very contradictory system of national symbols has been formed, which is increasingly focused on displacing the Soviet experience, its achievements, heroes, memorable places and dates. At the same time, new heroes are coming to the fore - participants in national political movements, collaborators of the fascists. So, for example, it is very difficult to explain how the decisions of the Ukrainian authorities relate to the awarding of the title Hero of Ukraine. Along with famous scientists, workers, and test pilots, such a high title was awarded to R. Shukhevych, and then to S. Bandera. And, despite the fact that under President V. Yanukovych these decisions were overturned by the court, they played their role. For some time, schools in Ukraine taught from history textbooks prepared in the United States, where many events in Russia and Ukraine were considered from a position that reflected the national interests of the United States, not Ukraine. The presence of Ukraine within Russia is interpreted in some textbooks as “hindering the cultural and political development of the Ukrainian people” and the reason for “separation from European civilization” and “liquidation of independent Ukrainian statehood.”

Links to sources 1. Bocharnikov, I.V. On the state ideology of Russia and international relations. 2013. No. 1.S. 2227.2. Gadzhiev, D.M. Management of “color revolutions”: some regional characteristics and features // Criminology: yesterday, today, tomorrow. 2014.No.3.S.7780.3.Karpovich, O.G., Manoilo, A.V., Naumov, A.O. Countering the technologies of color revolutions about the youth environment. Educational manual. M., 2015.91 p.4. Ovchinnikov A.I. “Controlled chaos” as the main threat to Russia’s national security // Philosophy of Law. 2014. No. 3. P. 98101.5. Tsygankov, P.A. universal values ​​in world and foreign policy. M., 2012