The essence of modern conflicts in the world. The most acute conflict of our time: the clash of the secular globalist project with all traditional cultures

02.11.2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At the same time, we, representatives of the Russian World, urge you to pay attention not only to the change external conditions our existence, but also on internal changes affecting the human soul.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FEATURES OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS OF MODERN TIME.

INTRODUCTION........................................................ ........................................................ .. 3

CHAPTER 1. CONCEPT AND PHENOMENON OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT 6

1.1 The problem of scientific definition of international conflict.......... 6

1.2 Structure and functions of the conflict.................................................... ............. 9

CHAPTER 2. FEATURES OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS OF THE POST-BIPOLAR PERIOD................................................... ................................ 14

CONCLUSION................................................. ............................................... 21

LITERATURE................................................. ........................................... 23

INTRODUCTION

At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, fundamental changes took place in the field of international security. The world community is faced with fundamentally new challenges and threats. In many regions of the world, there is interstate rivalry, which threatens the outbreak of local wars and military conflicts, which for the most part can take the form of armed confrontation. The work examines the main features of local wars and military conflicts in modern conditions.

Global geopolitical, economic, sociocultural interaction on modern stage characterized by “power dominance”. Events in the Persian Gulf region, as well as in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, latest events in the Middle East (Egypt, Libya, Syria) indicate that the unipolar world has become even more dangerous than the bipolar one during the Cold War. The presence of significant military force and the demonstration of determination to use it unilaterally in any area of ​​the globe is considered a necessary condition for protecting US national security interests and the spread of American influence on a global scale. As a result of the collapse of such a superpower as the USSR, international relations became, to a certain extent, without alternative.

All states of the world, planning their actions for international arena, must now take into account the American foreign policy course. A distinctive feature of the post-bipolar system of international relations has been the growing tension caused by the sole leadership of the United States in conditions of global interdependence.

Formation qualitatively new system international relations in the context of globalization deepens old and creates new problems and threats in the field of international security. All more countries involved in local wars and military conflicts. There are serious reasons to believe that the new World War if it occurs, it will occur in a different form than the previous ones: from a global bipolar collision it will turn into permanent armed conflicts covering the whole world.

Historians have calculated that over the past 5.5 thousand years, 15.5 thousand wars and military conflicts have occurred on Earth (an average of 3 wars per year). In the 15 years from the end of the 19th century to the First World War, 36 wars and military conflicts were recorded (an average of 2.4 per year). In the 21 years between the two world wars, 80 wars occurred (4 per year). From 1945 to 1990, 300 wars occurred (an average of 7.5 - 8 per year). And over the past 12 years, about 100 wars and military conflicts have occurred (10 per year).

Many scientific works of both domestic and foreign authors are devoted to the study of local wars and military conflicts in the context of global changes.

Considering the relevance of the problem, the goal of our work is to analyze and reveal the main features of local wars and military conflicts in modern conditions.

Over the past decade and a half, in all local wars and military conflicts, the decisive factor was not the military destruction of the enemy, but his political isolation and powerful diplomatic pressure on his leadership.

If in the past in the struggle for the division of the world the main role was played by the military component of the power of states, then in the conditions of globalization there is a tendency to expand spheres of influence through non-military means. We are talking about the strategy of “indirect action”. It involves achieving victory without (if possible) conducting an armed struggle in the usual sense and is characterized, first of all, by the integrated use of methods of economic and information pressure on the enemy in combination with intelligence operations, military threats and demonstrations of military power. In this regard, a new, but already quite widespread term has appeared - information-psychological confrontation. Its essence lies in the fact that the main efforts in the fight against the enemy are aimed not at the physical destruction of means of armed struggle, but, first of all, at the elimination of the information resource of state government bodies and systems, and a significant weakening of the enemy’s military potential.

CHAPTER 1. CONCEPT AND PHENOMENON OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT

1.1. The problem of scientific definition of international conflict

Despite the invisible presence of conflict in all areas public life, its precise and unambiguous definition remains the subject of scientific research. This is partly due to the multifaceted nature of the conflict and the variety of its forms. Another and perhaps more important circumstance that hinders a general understanding of this phenomenon is the fundamental difference between the roles and functions that conflict is assigned within the framework of various approaches to the study of various social processes...

The subjects of a conflict are usually understood as its direct participants. They are separated by their own systems of interests and values, in this case incompatible; while the object of the conflict or a set of such objects unites them into a single whole, creating a system of conflict. The subjects of the conflict add subjective ones to the objective contradictions, turning them into the driving force of the conflict.

The system of existing contradictions, having turned into a system of interests of the subjects of the conflict, requires them to realize the incompatibility of goals and the impossibility of simultaneously fully achieving them. From the moment of such awareness, the conflict begins, at least in its latent phase. After this, action strategies of the conflict subjects are formulated.

Conflict is a situation in which the participants in a relationship are united by a single object, in relation to which there is an incompatibility of their interests realized by each; and act on the basis of such awareness.

This definition emphasizes the dualistic nature of the conflict: it exists both in the consciousness and in the actions of the participants. These two areas of conflict are interconnected, and conflict management is most effective if it extends to both. In addition, conflict is a dynamic, not a static phenomenon that goes through a number of phases of development, at each of which new features become characteristic of it. Finally, the universality of the given definition allows us to embrace conflict as a generalizing concept, opening up prospects for, if not creating, then at least discussing a general theory of conflict.

Conflictology deals with various types international conflicts, among which the most universal is political conflict. There is no single and generally accepted definition of the phenomenon of political conflict, which, however, does not mean the absence of some common elements in the understanding of this phenomenon. What is common is the recognition of the existing persistent confrontation, a situation of tension, a clash of parties, goals and interests, and a political conflict is characterized by bringing these contradictions to the political, power level. Political conflict is a social phenomenon, a structured process, a unique means of resolving political issues important to its participants, which they subjectively assessed as mutually exclusive interests.

International conflict can be considered:

4) as an opportunity or situation;

5) as a structure;

6) as an event or process.

The given list of interpretations of the conflict indicates the complexity and systemic nature of this phenomenon, because to fully understand the conflict it is necessary to study it in all of the above-mentioned manifestations.

An international conflict is a conflict that arises with the participation of two or more international players and has international political consequences; the object of the conflict goes beyond the jurisdiction of any of its participants.

International conflict has the following features:

– parties to the conflict can be both states and other international players capable of pursuing political goals;

– an international conflict may begin as an internal one, but its escalation can take the object of the conflict beyond the jurisdiction of its participants, as a result of which the conflict leads to international consequences;

– the development of an international conflict occurs in the specific conditions of anarchy of the international system, which reduces the effectiveness of international legal instruments for resolution;

– international conflict can take various shapes, and often the concepts associated with a conflict indicate only one of the possible ways to resolve it (for example, an ultimatum).

An international crisis is a specific phase of an international conflict, which is characterized by 1) high value of the interests of the parties, 2) short time for decision-making, 3) high level strategic uncertainty.

Often a crisis is identified with the use of military force in a conflict, although there is no direct connection between them. However, a crisis, by reducing the amount of information available to the parties regarding each other’s actions and intentions, as well as increasing antagonism in the conflict, also increases the likelihood of the conflict moving from a latent phase to a phase of open confrontation with the use of military force.

When the use of military force occurs during a crisis, it is often spontaneous, unorganized and may involve the mobilization of regular troops, guerrilla forces or liberation armies; implementation of economic or military sanctions; partial occupation or violation of the status of demilitarized zones; border incidents. Unlike war, the use of military force during an international crisis is not systematic. However, if we take into account the time pressure under which the crisis participants operate, the unsystematic use of military force can provoke a full-scale war.

1.2 Structure and functions of the conflict

In modern political science exists the whole system methods - methodological approaches - which are based on identifying common and stable features of fundamentally changeable phenomena.

The methodological approach is called a systemic one, and among the various methods within its framework, the structural method is optimal for our tasks. It allows us to identify the structure of an international conflict and assess its significance.

International conflict, even in the relatively simple form of bilateral confrontation between sovereign states, is a complex social system. All social systems are characterized by a high degree of variability, dynamism and openness. This means that such systems actively exchange information with the environment and are updated under the influence of this exchange. In these conditions, an important task is to establish constant parameters inherent in international conflicts in general, and on the basis of which the conflict can be studied...

The most important of them traditionally include the subjects (parties) of the conflict, its object or object field (sometimes the subject), relations between subjects and participants (third parties). In addition, it is also necessary to establish its framework (temporal, geographical, systemic) and the environment in which the conflict takes place. After these operations are completed, the existing structure of the conflict and its place in the world of other social relations will become clear.

The range of subjects of international conflict mainly consists of sovereign states. In the modern theory of international relations, large-scale discussions continue on changing the role of the state in international relations.

The state's monopoly on participation in international conflicts is being destroyed. Today, the initiators and parties to conflicts that fall under the above definition can be, in addition to sovereign states, national liberation movements, terrorist groups, separatist forces, transnational corporations and, quite possibly, individuals.

In general, it is fair to conclude that the usual subject of international conflict is sovereign state- gives way to numerous competitors who, due to the weakening and erosion of state sovereignty, acquire the ability to formulate their own political goals and the potential to achieve them. This complicates both the diagnosis and typology of international conflicts, and also diversifies the means of managing them.

Subjects of an international conflict are characterized by a complex of interests and the possibilities for their protection, that is, power capabilities, if power is understood in the modern, broad sense. The complex of interests determines the goals of each of the subjects, thus defining the object field of the conflict - a set of goals that cannot be achieved simultaneously.

The object of an international conflict is a material or intangible value regarding which the interests of its subjects are incompatible; full ownership or control over which cannot be achieved simultaneously by all parties to the conflict.

The object of an international conflict can be territory, political influence, military presence, ideological control, etc. As a rule, an international conflict arises as a result of the interweaving of several different contradictions, as a result of which a system of interconnected objects is formed - the object field of the conflict. Some researchers also highlight the subject of conflict as a specific, specifically defined value, over which the parties enter into conflicting relationships...

In an international conflict, the parties pursue several goals simultaneously. Therefore, the object field of a conflict, as a rule, consists of several elements, among which the most important are: 1) power (political control, influence) 2) values, 3) territory and other physical resources. These elements are interrelated, and by extending control to one of them, the subject of the conflict can count on strengthening influence on others. This relationship complicates the regulation of modern international conflicts.

In modern international conflicts, of course, all of the specified resource groups can be targets. Territorial conflicts, that is, conflicts in which the main object is territory, still acquire particular importance. The significance and value of a territory are determined by the functions it performs in the development of the power capabilities of a modern state. The territory is at the same time a location for armies and weapons, an important economic and geopolitical resource. This increases its political value and makes it the most “popular” object of conflict, especially between new or so-called. "weak" states. In addition to territory, other material assets may also be objects of conflict.

The relations between the subjects of the conflict represent the practical interaction of their strategies.

Depending on the phase of the conflict and its object, relations between the parties are concentrated primarily in one or several related areas. Only large-scale conflicts (“total”) affect all areas of relations between the parties. The relationships between the subjects determine the type of conflict.

According to the predominant importance of a particular sphere of relations, economic, political, military, information conflicts, etc. can be distinguished.

The main general functions of conflict were first identified in the works of the founder of the so-called. “Positive-functional” approach to conflictology by Lewis Coser.

Their totality characterizes conflict as a special state of relations between elements of society, which, due to the identification of systemic contradictions, is capable of resolving some of them, thus ensuring the progression and stability of further development. We identify the following main functions of conflict.

1) The integrative function of conflict is to help overcome internal contradictions and inconsistencies.

2) The information function of conflict is manifested in its ability to facilitate the exchange of information between elements of social systems.

3) Acting as a means of formulating and resolving contradictions, conflict performs an organizational function.

4) Conflicts perform another function, which is related to the previous one - stabilization. Thanks to conflicts, acute contradictions that can destroy the system find a way out.

5) The innovative function of conflict, like the previous two, is associated with its contribution to maintaining the viability of systems of social relations. Conflict forces subjects and participants to generate ideas about how to win or resolve the conflict.

CHAPTER 2. FEATURES OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS OF THE POST-BIPOLAR PERIOD

After the end of the Cold War, contrary to many liberal, optimistic forecasts about the gradual decline in international conflict and the construction of a more stable world order, world system international relations has not become less conflict-ridden, nor has there been any “obsolescence” or “obsolescence” of international conflicts.

While, indeed, in the developed part of the world war between great powers is an anachronism, in other parts of the world - Africa, South Asia, the Middle East, the post-Soviet space - conflicts are still an integral part of interstate relations and intrastate development, or rather , degradation.

International conflicts of the present are taking a new form, incompatible with the traditional perception of the concept of war. Even for the most developed countries, new generation conflicts pose a vital threat. “New forms of war and conflict could destroy our military advantage if we do not renew and adapt,” the US military admits. Thus, this topic is extremely relevant as a general civilizational problem.

The main feature of the development of international conflict in recent decades is the steady consolidation of the trend toward the constant presence of armed violence, which is confirmed by data from most existing databases on the development of conflicts.

According to the Uppsala University Armed Conflict Data Program, the majority of conflicts in the last decade have been internal in nature (about 95%), with their peak in the early 2010s and onwards for obvious reasons, while traditional interstate wars have almost disappeared.

Quantitative indicators also indicate a persistent trend towards a decrease in the number and intensity of wars. There is a clear trend toward a steady decrease in the number of armed conflicts involving states - in 1991, their number in the world was 49, and in 2005 - 25. At the same time, an alarming trend is that the number of states one way or another involved in armed conflicts is constantly growing . This is a direct result of the internationalization of some conflicts. The same contradictory trend can be traced in human losses during military operations. At the same time, the number of civilian casualties during military operations is increasing disproportionately. According to some estimates, civilian casualties in conflicts account for 80-90% of all victims (for comparison: during the Second World War - about 50%, at the beginning of the last century - 20%).

The changes that international conflicts have undergone since the end of the Cold War have forced them to be identified either radically into a completely new cluster of “new” wars, conflicts of a new generation, or more cautiously into a group of conflicts that have only changed their form, not their essence. There is debate in the professional community regarding the “newness” of modern international conflicts. For example, E. Newman considers the difference between old and modern wars to be a significant exaggeration, questions the sustainability of trends in the development of modern international conflicts, and notes that all manifestations of modern conflict have existed for a long time.

Along with the term “new” wars (conflicts), in the broader political science and military-strategic discourse, such terms as 4th generation conflicts, low-intensity conflicts, asymmetric conflicts, modern conflicts and post-modern ones are used in the same semantic range. modern), extra-state wars, etc.

In modern military science, the term 4th generation conflict is widely used. It is defined as “a form of conflict that is used to achieve a moral victory by undermining a potential adversary by exploiting the weaknesses of its information infrastructure, asymmetrical actions, weapons and equipment different from the weapons and equipment of the enemy.” According to military experts, a characteristic feature of such conflicts is the blurring of the distinctions between war and crime, virtual and physical, military and criminals, etc., “unconventional and asymmetrical actions close to insurgent and terrorist.” Thus, armed struggle takes a decentralized form, which differs from the open interstate confrontation of previous periods.

In our opinion, the conflicts of the post-bipolar era are not a phenomenon divorced from the previous era; they undoubtedly inherited most of their traditional parameters, a structure in the form of contradictions, hostile attitudes and behavior, as defined by the classics. But most of the qualitative parameters of international conflicts underwent changes precisely after the end of the Cold War and the radical restructuring of the international system, the development of processes of interdependence and globalization (and in parallel with its antipode - fragmentation). Thus, these conflicts can be called “new” in form rather than in nature.

It is characteristic that the classical interstate forms of armed conflicts are becoming “obsolete” and are gradually being replaced by other forms of conflicts, most often intrastate ones. This is due, along with other factors, to the degradation of state power, the decreasing role of states as relatively autonomous players in the international system, and the acquisition of opportunities by “new” players (including criminal paramilitary groups, terrorist organizations, resistance movements, etc.). It is more or less effective to counteract governments that are legitimate in the international legal sense, including influencing world politics. Thus, according to Keldor M., the conflicts of the new era occur “in the context of the erosion of the monopoly of legitimate organized violence.”

Globalization has a double effect on the nature of modern conflicts and wars. Firstly, it leads to the erosion of state power and social vulnerability, and secondly, it creates new opportunities and economic incentives that arise during the civil war, thereby stimulating their onset.

The main types of modern conflicts are low-intensity civil wars and asymmetric wars that are waged between stronger and weaker states or non-state players (Syria, Libya). Conflicts of the new generation - conflicts based on separatism, nationalism, insurgent movements, etc. - have a distinctly asymmetrical nature, which significantly complicates, and sometimes makes it impossible, their quick and sustainable solution. The protracted nature of most modern conflicts is their characteristic feature.

Qualitative parameters of “new” conflicts.

Defining armed conflicts of our time as a qualitatively new phenomenon of the international system, the authors of the theory of “novelty” of modern wars rely on such variables as players or parties to the conflict, reasons or motives for the initiation and conduct of armed struggle, their spatial location, means of struggle, losses from the conflict (human casualties , material losses). All these factors, in their opinion, have undergone fundamental changes.

New wars have a more complex multi-level structure in terms of the composition of the conflicting parties. The parties to most intrastate conflicts are non-state actors, such as organized crime, criminal groups, religious movements, international charities, the diaspora, and rebel groups. Such diversification of the parties to the conflict, in our opinion, testifies not only to the new opportunities and potentials that these players received thanks to the objective processes taking place in international system, but also about the multi-layered structure of contradictions that underlie each of the modern conflicts and about the complexity of the task of their long-term settlement based on satisfying the interests of all parties.

The motivation and reasons for starting and conducting hostilities, the use of violence, etc. change. Paradoxically, the goal of conducting military operations is often not victory over an opponent, which is typical for traditional conflicts, but the state of war itself, its consolidation, then there is war as an end in itself. Thus, new wars have the goal of political mobilization, when participation in hostilities is almost the only form of social activity.

According to Kaldor M., new wars, unlike previous eras, do not have geopolitical or ideological motives, but revolve around identity, and this identity in most cases has no connection with the state. Such a statement is consistent with S. Huntington’s controversial theory of the clash of civilizations. Political motives fade into the background, there are no “clear political goals” and “definite political ideology, which justified the actions."

Regarding the impact of conflict actions on the population, international conflicts of the period under study are characterized by the growing dependence of the population on conflict actions, an “off the charts” level of violence used against non-combatants, the spread of ethnic cleansing, forced population transfers, and the like. Civilian casualties are intentional, planned, and not simply side effects of military action.

New methods and methods of armed struggle are being developed, classical wars using regular armies are gradually being replaced by small clashes of low intensity, forms of struggle are close to guerrilla warfare, or “cleansing” of the civilian population. In addition, new types of weapons are being developed; experts predict a gradual transformation of traditional forms of armed struggle into non-contact ones and those that do not lead to immediate death, but are latent, a kind of “delayed-action mines.” Thus, among new types of deadly weapons, experts identify geophysical, laser, genetic, acoustic, electromagnetic weapons, etc. Of course, this would be more typical for armed conflicts between rich and technologically developed countries.

The main threat in this situation is the lack of international legal instruments that could adequately monitor and control new types of weapons, since they most often use dual-use technologies.

In addition, according to many liberal authors, an important factor that is gradually beginning to emerge is such a moral and normative aspect as the attitude towards international conflicts (on the part of the international community).

CONCLUSION

All the factors indicated in the work became the basis for scientific speculation regarding the radically new nature of conflicts in the post-bipolar era. According to the author, it is not the essential characteristics of this phenomenon that have changed (after all, then the conflict would be a conflict), but rather the scale and forms of manifestation of confrontation. The term “new” wars (conflicts) is convenient for use in scientific and political discourse, but should not mean anything more than a modification of a classic armed conflict.

It is important to note that the conflicts of the post-bipolar period, due to a number of factors mentioned above, have brought to the forefront threats of a humanitarian nature that require immediate solutions. Obviously, methods for resolving such conflicts, as well as scientific tools for their analysis, do not always meet the requirements of the time. The most pressing need of the international community, as well as of each individual state, is to adapt to the changes brought about by the new generation of conflicts to ensure national and international security.

In the post-bipolar system of international relations, there is a unique interaction of symmetric and asymmetric factors. This creates additional threats, but at the same time additional opportunities for system stability. What is common in both forms of conflict is that the parties reach a settlement at the point where the cost of further dispute exceeds the cost of reaching an agreement.

If the means of mutual pressure between the parties in a symmetrical relationship is power potential in all its manifestations and forms; then in a situation of asymmetry, such means are asymmetries of time, goals, etc., as well as the influence of third parties and the interdependence of partners.

Particularly threatening are conflicts whose parties are weakly dependent on each other. Resolving such conflicts becomes problematic, as exemplified by international terrorism, especially when viewed in the context of a “clash of civilizations.”

Strengthening the interdependence of subjects of international relations and the spread of international regimes is one of the most effective means preventing asymmetric conflicts.

LITERATURE

1. Database UCDP/PRIO (Uppsala Conflict Data Program/ Peace Research Institute of Oslo) - “Number of state-based armed conflicts by type, 1946-2005” // http://www. humansecuritybrief. info/2006/figures. html

2. Belous of the XXI century // International life. – 2009. - No. 1. – pp. 104-129.

3. Lebedev conflict resolution. – M.: Aspect-Press, 1999. – 271 p.

4. International law. and others. 4th ed., erased. - M.: 2011. - 831 p.

6. Stepanova and people in modern conflicts // International processes. - 2008. - T. 6. - No. 1 (16) - pp. 29–40.

7. Tsygankov international relations: Textbook. manual - M.: Gardariki, 2003. - 590 p.

8. Gray S. C. How Has War Changed Since the End of the Cold War? // Parameters. – Spring 2005. // http://www. carlisle. army. mil/usawc/parameters/05spring/gray. htm

9. Kaldor M. New and Old Wars: Organized Crime in a Global Era. – Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001. – 216 p.

10. Mial H., Ramsbotham O., Woodhouse T. Contemporary Conflict Resolution: The Prevention, Management and Transformation of Deadly Conflicts. – Malden: Blackwell Publishing Inc., 2003. – 270 p.

11. Mueller J. The Obsolescence of Major War// The Global Agenda: Issues and Perspectives/ C. W. Kegley, E. R. Wittkopf. – 4th ed. – New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1995. - P. 44 - 53.

12. Newman E. The “New Wars” Debate: A Historical Perspective is Needed // Security Dialogue. – Vol.35 – 2004. - No. 2. – P. 173-189.

13. Topor S. A New Generation of Military Conflict Technology – The Fourth Generation Warfare // Strategic Impact. – 2006. - No. 2. – P.85-90 // www.

14. UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset Codebook // http://www. pcr. uu. se/publications/UCDP_pub/Codebook_v4-2006b. pdf

15. Wilson G. I., Bunkers F., Sullivan J. P. Anticipating the Nature of the Next Conflict. – 19 February 2001 // http://www. /emergent-thrts. htm

International law. and others. 4th ed., erased. - M.: 2011. – P. 117

International law. and others. 4th ed., erased. - M.: 2011. – P. 121

Wilson G. I., Bunkers F., Sullivan J. P. Anticipating the Nature of the Next Conflict. – 19 February 2001 // http://www. /emergent-thrts. htm

UCDP/PRIO database (Uppsala Conflict Data Program/ Peace Research Institute of Oslo) - “Number of state-based armed conflicts by type, 1946-2005” // http://www. humansecuritybrief. info/2006/figures. html

Panova Western studies of international conflict // International processes. - 2005. – T. 3. – No. 2(8) // http://www. intertrends. ru/seven/005.htm

Newman E. The “New Wars” Debate: A Historical Perspective is Needed // Security Dialogue. – Vol.35 – 2004. - No. 2. – P. 173-189

Topor S. A New Generation of Military Conflict Technology – The Fourth Generation Warfare // Strategic Impact. – 2006. - No. 2. – P.85-90 // www.

Kaldor M. New and Old Wars: Organized Crime in a Global Era. – Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001. – P. 4

Newman E. The “New Wars” Debate: A Historical Perspective is Needed // Security Dialogue. – Vol.35 – 2004. - No. 2. – C 177

Panova Western studies of international conflict // International processes. - 2005. – T. 3. – No. 2(8) // http://www. intertrends. ru/seven/005.htm

Kaldor M. New and Old Wars: Organized Crime in a Global Era. – Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001. – P. 6

Newman E. The “New Wars” Debate: A Historical Perspective is Needed // Security Dialogue. – Vol.35 – 2004. - No. 2. – P. 177

Belous of the XXI century // International life. – 2009. - No. 1. – pp. 104-129.

Stepanova and man in modern conflicts // International processes. - 2008. - T. 6. - No. 1 (16) - P. 39.

The central problem of the theory of international relations is the problem of international conflicts. An international conflict involves a clash between two or more parties (states, groups of states, peoples and political movements) based on the existing contradictions between them of an objective or subjective nature. By their origin, these contradictions and the problems they generate in relations between states can be territorial, national, religious, economic, military-strategic.

World experience shows that the main characteristic of the subjects of international conflicts is force. It refers to the ability of one subject of a conflict to impose its will on another subject. In other words, the power of the subjects of the conflict means the ability to coerce.

Since the subject of an international conflict is a contradiction in the foreign policy interests of various states or their unification, the functional purpose of the conflict is the resolution of this contradiction. But the resolution of the conflict does not always result in the full-scale implementation of the national and state interests of one of the parties to the conflict. Nevertheless, in the process of resolving an international conflict, it is possible to arrive at a mutually acceptable balance of interests of its participants, although with certain reservations. However, in some cases, especially during armed struggle, there can be no question of a balance of interests. In this case, we should talk about suppressing the interests of one of the parties, but in this case the conflict does not receive its resolution, but only goes into a latent phase, which is fraught with its further aggravation at the first opportunity.

International conflicts are common throughout the Earth. For example, according to the UN, in 1994 there were 34 armed conflicts in the world in 28 zones (territories of states where conflicts broke out). And in 1989 there were 137 of them. Their distribution by region was as follows: Africa - 43, of which in 1993 - 7; Asia - 49, including 9 in 1993; Central and South America-20, in 1993 -3; Europe-13, in 1993 - 4; Middle East -23, of which in 1993 - 4. As this analysis shows, the general trend is a decrease in conflict zones in the late 1990s. But the only region where there was a trend towards increasing conflicts, oddly enough, was Europe. In 1993, their number increased from 2 to 4.

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

Modern international conflicts are determined by the following specifics: their subjects are states or coalitions; this conflict is a continuation of the participating states; international conflict is currently dangerous mass death people in participating countries and around the world; We must also remember that the basis of international conflicts is the clash of national-state interests of the conflicting parties; modern conflicts simultaneously influence international relations locally and globally.

Based on the interests of the subjects of the conflict, the following types of international conflicts are distinguished: conflict of ideologies; conflict of political dominance; territorial conflict; ethnic conflict; religious; economic conflict.

Each conflict has its own characteristics. The territorial conflict will serve as an example of these features. This conflict is preceded by territorial claims of the parties to each other. This could be, firstly, claims by states regarding territory that belongs to one of the parties. Such claims, for example, have led to conflicts between Iran and Iraq, Iraq and Kuwait, the Middle East conflict and many others. Secondly, these are claims that arise during the formation of the borders of the newly formed states. Conflicts on this basis arise today in the former Yugoslavia, in Russia, in Georgia.

Thus, conflict in international relations acts as a multifaceted phenomenon that has a political connotation. In it, foreign policy interests of the most diverse nature and content are woven into a single knot. International conflicts are generated by a wide range of objective and subjective reasons. Therefore, when analyzing a specific situation, it is impossible to attribute it to one type or another.

As noted above, international conflicts are based on contradictions that arise between states. When analyzing these contradictions, it is necessary to take into account their nature. Contradictions can be objective or subjective, the disappearance of which can occur due to a change in the political leadership or leader of one of the parties to the conflict; in addition, contradictions can be antagonistic and non-antagonistic in nature, which will affect the forms, scale and means of development of international conflict.

The emergence and development of an international conflict is associated not only with objective contradictions that arise in relations between states, but also with such subjective factors as foreign policy. The conflict is caused, “prepared”, and resolved precisely by conscious, purposeful foreign policy states, but one cannot ignore such a subjective factor as the personal characteristics and qualities of political figures involved in decision-making. Sometimes personal relationships between leaders can have a significant impact on interstate relations, including the development of conflict situations.

Between these, it can be noted that one of the special features of international conflicts is the relationship with domestic political ones. This feature may manifest itself in various ways. Firstly, this is the transition of an internal political conflict into an international one. In this case, the internal political conflict provokes interference in its affairs by other states or causes tension between other countries over this conflict. Examples include the evolution of the Afghan conflict in the 70s and 80s or the Korean conflict in the late 40s and early 50s.

Secondly, the influence of international conflict on the emergence of domestic political conflict. It is expressed in the aggravation of the internal situation in the country as a result of its participation in an international conflict. A classic example is the First World War, which became one of the causes of the two Russian revolutions of 1917.

Thirdly, an international conflict can become a temporary settlement of an internal political conflict. For example, during the Second World War, the French Resistance Movement united in its ranks representatives of the conflicting Peaceful time political parties.

Political science and the practice of international relations distinguishes different types and types of international conflicts. However, there is no single typology of international conflicts recognized by all researchers. The most common classification of conflicts is the division into symmetrical and asymmetrical. Symmetrical conflicts include conflicts that are characterized by approximately equal strength of the parties involved. Asymmetric conflicts, in turn, are conflicts with a sharp difference in the potential of the conflicting parties.

An interesting classification of conflicts was proposed by the Canadian political scientist A. Rappoport, who used the form of an international conflict as a criterion. According to him, conflicts are of three types: in the form of “battle”, in the form of “game” and in the form of “debate”. The most dangerous conflict is in the form of battle. The parties involved in it are initially belligerent towards each other and try to inflict maximum damage on the enemy. The behavior of participants in such a conflict can be defined as irrational, since they often set themselves unattainable goals and inadequately perceive the international situation and the actions of the opposite side.

In turn, in a conflict that unfolds in the form of a “game,” the behavior of the participants is determined by rational considerations. Despite outward manifestations of belligerence, the parties are not inclined to take the aggravation of relations to the extreme.

A conflict that develops as a “debate” is characterized by the desire of the participants to resolve contradictions by reaching a compromise.

As is known, international conflicts could not arise without reason. Various factors contributed to their appearance. Thus, problems associated with the proliferation of weapons, their uncontrolled use, and difficult relations between industrial and resource-producing countries, while simultaneously increasing their interdependence, have made themselves felt. To this should be added the development of urbanization and migration of the city population, for which many states, in particular Africa, were unprepared; the growth of nationalism and fundamentalism as a reaction to the development of globalization processes. It also turned out to be significant that during the Cold War, the global confrontation between East and West to some extent “resolved” conflicts more low level. These conflicts were often used by the superpowers in their military-political confrontation, although they tried to keep them under control, realizing that regional conflicts could escalate into a global war. Therefore, in the most dangerous cases, the leaders of the bipolar world, despite the harsh confrontation among themselves, coordinated actions to reduce tensions in order to avoid a direct clash. For example, such a danger arose several times during the Cold War during the development of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Then each of the superpowers exerted influence on “its” ally in order to reduce the intensity of conflict relations.

And yet among large quantity factors influencing the development of conflicts, it is worth highlighting the restructuring of the world political system, its “departure” from the Westphalian model, which had prevailed for a long time. This transition process is associated with key moments of global political development.

Of course, there are a number of other reasons for the emergence of international conflicts - competition between states; divergence of national interests; territorial claims; social injustice on a global scale; uneven distribution natural resources; negative perception of each other by the parties. The listed reasons are the main factors fueling international conflicts.

International conflicts have both positive and negative functions.

The positive ones include the following: preventing stagnation in international relations; stimulation of creative principles in search of ways out of difficult situations; determining the degree of inconsistency between the interests and goals of states; preventing larger conflicts and ensuring stability through the institutionalization of low-intensity conflicts.

In turn, destructive functions are manifested in the following: causes disorder, instability, violence; increases the stressful state of the psyche of the population in the participating countries; give rise to the possibility of ineffective political decisions.

Having determined the place and significance of international conflicts, giving them characteristics, we can fully pay attention to the international conflicts of our time.

Speaking about the structure of conflict in international relations of the 21st century, it is expedient to distinguish three groups of clashes. The first is the top floor of the structure, conflicts between developed countries. At the present stage, they are practically absent, because inertia and Cold War stereotypes operate; The group is led by the leading superpower, the United States, and conflict between it and any other developed country is unlikely.

On the lower floor of this system, where the poorest countries are located, the potential for conflict remains very high: Africa, the poor countries of Asia (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, the countries of Indochina), but this conflict scares few people. The world community is accustomed to victims in these cases, and the situation is resolved through a combination of intervention by the UN or former colonial metropolises (France) and the emigration of the most active part of the population from these regions to more prosperous countries - the USA and Western Europe.

The most complex part of the structure remains the middle - the countries located between the “bottom” and the “top”. These countries transitional belt. These include the states of the former socialist community and countries of the former colonial periphery, which began to move towards highly developed countries with developed democracies and market economy, but due to reasons they did not grow up to their ideals. They are “stuck” in their movement somewhere on the middle floors and are experiencing difficulties for this reason: within these societies there is a struggle between forces of different orientations, conflicts arise in relations with former brothers in the level of development who have remained marking time; agreement also does not occur with highly developed countries. Perhaps this is where the epicenter of what is called the “conflict of civilizations” is concentrated, since China, Iran, Arab countries, and large South America remain here.

In general, the situation with conflict in international relations is beginning to look like a significant deterioration compared to the Cold War period. Restrictions imposed by fears of nuclear conflict no longer apply; the level of contradictions does not decrease. Moreover, with the spread nuclear weapons the prospect of a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan looks real.

Each era in the military history of mankind has its own technological and political specifics. The wars of the 20th century were armed conflicts on a global scale. Almost all major industrial powers took part in these conflicts. In the 20th century, the wars that the countries of the divided West waged against non-Western opponents were perceived as secondary. Thus, the beginning of World War II is officially considered the German attack on Poland, and not the Japanese invasion of China. Countries that did not belong to European civilization were predominantly politically undeveloped, technically backward, and militarily weak. Since the second half of the 20th century, Western countries began to suffer defeats in remote regions (Suez, Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan), but the third world as a whole, although it turned into the main field of “free hunting” of the superpowers, remained a military-political periphery.

The 20th century opened with a war between the “pillars” of the then world order, and ended with a series of ethnic conflicts that broke out as a result of the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia. The beginning of the “military-political” 21st century was marked by terrorist attack USA September 11, 2001. The new century began under the sign of globalization of all spheres of life, including the security sphere. A zone of stable peace that includes countries European Union and NATO, North America, Japan, Australia, most of Latin America, Russia, China, India, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan and some other countries have expanded. But it is increasingly affected by the zone of security deficit (Near and Middle East, middle Asia, most of Africa and Southeast Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans). The wars of the 21st century (at least its first quarter) are intercivilizational wars. We are talking about the clash of Western civilization with its irreconcilable enemies who reject all its values ​​and achievements. The USA in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia in the North Caucasus (it is possible that in Central Asia). Israel, in its confrontation with Palestinian extremists, is waging war against an enemy that does not rely on a state, does not have a defined territory and population, and who thinks and acts differently than modern states. Civil war within Muslim societies is a specific part of these wars.

In the first quarter of the 21st century, the main cause of wars and conflicts in the world continues to be the contradictions generated by the modernization of the countries of the Near and Middle East. The activities of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the Islamic Movement of Turkestan, and the Taliban are primarily a reaction to the growing involvement of the Near and Middle East in global processes. Aware of the general backwardness of the Arab-Muslim world, its economic uncompetitiveness and, at the same time, the West’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil, reactionaries seek to discredit the ruling regimes of the countries of the region, declaring them accomplices of the West, overthrow them under Islamist slogans and, having seized power, establish a new order - caliphate. Along with the threat posed by Islamist extremists, the danger is posed by the attempts of some regimes in the region to gain access to nuclear weapons. These two political trends determine the main content of the problem of military security in today's world and in the future (the next 15-20 years).

Below I will provide expert assessments of the likelihood of military conflicts, both nuclear and using only conventional weapons. The forecast is limited only to the first quarter of the 21st century.

A large-scale nuclear war between the United States and Russia is no longer possible. After the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, nuclear weapons were no longer seen as a means of achieving victory in the war. Since then, Moscow and Washington have been practicing a nuclear deterrence policy based on the principle of mutually assured destruction. After the political and ideological basis for global confrontation disappeared in the early 1990s, Russian-American containment became more of a technical problem. Having overcome open antagonism, Russia and the United States have not turned into either allies or full-fledged partners. Moscow and Washington still do not trust each other, and their rivalry has weakened but not ceased. The United States believes that the main problem of the Russian nuclear missile potential is its safety, in other words, technical serviceability and the exclusion of unauthorized access to the “start button.” From the point of view of the Russian Federation, nuclear weapons are a “status symbol” that allows the Russian leadership to lay claim to the role of a great power. In conditions where Russia’s international influence has significantly decreased and the sense of vulnerability has increased sharply, it plays the role of “psychological support.”

There is no ideological component in Sino-American relations, and geopolitical rivalry is limited. At the same time, there is a huge, constantly growing economic interdependence. A cold war between China and the US is not inevitable. At one time, the Chinese leadership, unlike the Soviet one, did not take the path of dramatically increasing its nuclear potential and did not compete with America in the nuclear missile arms race. Apparently, China and the United States tend to avoid aggravation of relations that could provoke a conflict. In the next two decades, the likelihood of conflict is low, even despite the Taiwan issue, which Washington and Beijing do not let out of their sight.

Due to the fact that neighboring states China and Russia have nuclear weapons, mutual nuclear deterrence is inevitable. From the point of view of the Russian government, nuclear weapons are the only effective military tool in the policy of containing China.

The “nuclear aspect” has completely disappeared from Moscow’s relations with London and Paris. Regarding the prospect of creating a nuclear armed force of the European Union, it can be argued that this will not happen in the first half of the 21st century.

In the context of the “creeping” proliferation of nuclear weapons, the likelihood of limited nuclear wars increases. The emergence of nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan in 1998 highlighted the possibility of such a war in Hindustan. It is possible, however, that the subsequent Kargil incident, the first armed conflict in history between states possessing nuclear weapons, played approximately the same role in Indo-Pakistani relations as the Cuban Missile Crisis in the Soviet-American confrontation.

Israel has long resorted to nuclear deterrence against Arab neighbors whose policies threaten the very existence of the Jewish state. The Middle East peace process, which began shortly after the end of the 1973 war, led to the establishment of stable Israeli relations with Egypt and Jordan. Nevertheless, complete normalization of relations with the Arab world is a matter of the distant future, and until then the nuclear factor remains important in Israeli-Arab relations.

If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the consequences could be manifold: a preventive war by the United States and Israel against Iran, and further proliferation of nuclear weapons ( Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria), and the formalization of mutual containment of the United States in alliance with Israel, on the one hand, and Iran, on the other. Any of these scenarios poses a serious risk to regional and global security.

Meanwhile, the use of nuclear weapons is becoming increasingly likely ( nuclear materials) terrorists. The targets of their attacks may be the USA, Russia, Israel, European countries, Australia and many other states. There is a great danger of using other types of weapons, especially biological ones.

So, the conclusion suggests itself that the possible scale of conflicts involving the use of nuclear weapons has sharply decreased, but the likelihood of their occurrence has increased significantly.

Predictions of future conflicts without the use of nuclear weapons roughly look like this.

The most common conflicts in the 21st century will apparently be local wars generated by interethnic contradictions. For Russia, a resumption of the Armenian-Azerbaijani war would be especially dangerous. The armed struggle for Nagorno-Karabakh will have the character of both a traditional interstate and interethnic clash. “Frozen” ethnic conflicts in the Transcaucasus (Abkhazia, South Ossetia) and the Balkans (Kosovo, the “Albanian question” in Macedonia) also threaten regional destabilization, unless they can be resolved. In the Middle East, an international “earthquake” could be caused by the actualization of the Kurdish issue. However, experts predict that Africa will become the main “field” of conflict and war.

For the West, as for Russia, the greatest threat is the activity of Islamic extremists. What is critical is whether Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine can create viable secular regimes committed to modernizing their societies. Regardless of how events develop in Iraq and Afghanistan, the degree of US military-political involvement in the Middle East situation will remain high.

The development of events in Central Asia and the Middle East (Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan) will also determine the nature of future military-political relations between the main powers - the USA, Russia, China and India. Perhaps they will be able to find a path to pragmatic cooperation, joining forces in confronting common threats, and then relations between some of these countries could develop into long-term cooperation. If the leading powers follow the path of competition, it will lead them away from solving real security problems. The world will return to the traditional policy of “balance of power” with the inevitable periodic “tests of strength”. And then the situation that developed at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, when all the main participants in the international security system do not consider each other as potential opponents, will become history. A unique chance will be missed.

Thus, in conclusion, it can be noted that international conflict is the central problem of the theory of international relations, the main characteristic of which is force, which implies the ability to coerce. The subject of conflicts is a contradiction, by resolving which the conflict can be prevented. There is a certain typology of conflicts, which manifests itself in three forms: games, battles and debates. International conflicts are not a causeless consequence of something, they are a consequence of certain causes.

Throughout the history of our planet, peoples and entire countries have been at enmity. This led to the formation of conflicts whose scale was truly global. The nature of life itself encourages the survival of the strongest and the fittest. But, unfortunately, the king of nature not only destroys everything around him, but also destroys his own kind.

All the major changes on the planet over the past few thousand years are associated precisely with human activity. Maybe the desire to conflict with others has a genetic basis? One way or another, it will be difficult to remember a moment in time when peace reigned everywhere on Earth.

Conflicts bring pain and suffering, but almost all of them are still localized in some geographic or professional area. In the end, such skirmishes end with the intervention of someone stronger or the successful achievement of a compromise.

However, the most destructive conflicts involve the largest number of peoples, countries and people. The classics in history are the two World Wars that took place in the last century. However, there have been many other truly global conflicts in history that it is time to remember.

Thirty Years' War. These events took place between 1618 and 1648 in Central Europe. For the continent, this was the first global military conflict in history, which affected almost all countries, including even Russia. And the skirmish began with religious clashes in Germany between Catholics and Protestants, which developed into a struggle against Habsburg hegemony in Europe. Catholic Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, as well as the Czech Republic, Hungary and Croatia faced strong opponents in the form of Sweden, England and Scotland, France, the Danish-Norwegian Union and the Netherlands. There were many disputed territories in Europe, which fueled the conflict. The war ended with the signing of the Peace of Westphalia. He essentially put an end to feudalism and medieval Europe, establishing new boundaries of the main parties. And from the point of view of military operations, Germany suffered the main damage. Up to 5 million people died there alone; the Swedes destroyed almost all metallurgy and a third of the cities. It is believed that Germany recovered from its demographic losses only after 100 years.

Second Congo War. In 1998-2002, the Great African War unfolded in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This conflict has become the most destructive among the numerous wars on the Dark Continent over the past half century. The war initially arose between pro-government and anti-presidential forces and militias. The destructive nature of the conflict was associated with the participation of neighboring countries. In total, more than twenty armed groups representing nine countries took part in the war! Namibia, Chad, Zimbabwe and Angola supported the legitimate government, while Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi supported the rebels who sought to seize power. The conflict officially ended in 2002 with the signing of a peace agreement. However, this agreement looked fragile and temporary. Currently, a new war is raging again in the Congo, despite the presence of peacekeepers in the country. And the global conflict itself in 1998-2002 claimed the lives of more than 5 million people, becoming the deadliest since the Second World War. Most of the victims died from hunger and disease.

Napoleonic Wars. Under this collective name, the military operations that Napoleon waged from the time of his consulate in 1799 until his abdication in 1815 are known. The main confrontation arose between France and Great Britain. As a result, battles between them resulted in a series of naval battles in different parts of the globe, as well as a major land war in Europe. On the side of Napoleon, who gradually captured Europe, were his allies - Spain, Italy, Holland. The coalition of allies was constantly changing; in 1815, Napoleon fell to the forces of the seventh composition. Napoleon's decline was associated with failures in the Pyrenees and the campaign in Russia. In 1813, the emperor ceded Germany, and in 1814, France. The final episode of the conflict was the Battle of Waterloo, lost by Napoleon. In total, those wars killed between 4 and 6 million people on both sides.

Civil war in Russia. These events took place on the territory of the former Russian Empire between 1917 and 1922. For several centuries the country was ruled by tsars, but in the fall of 1917 the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin and Trotsky, seized power. After the storming of the Winter Palace, they removed the Provisional Government. The country, which was still taking part in the First World War, was immediately drawn into a new, this time internecine conflict. The People's Red Army was opposed by both the pro-tsarist forces, who longed for the restoration of the former regime, and the nationalists, who were solving their local problems. In addition, the Entente decided to support the anti-Bolshevik forces by landing in Russia. The war raged in the north - the British landed in Arkhangelsk, in the east - the captured Czechoslovak corps rebelled, in the south there were Cossack uprisings and campaigns of the Volunteer Army, and almost the entire west, under the terms of the Brest Peace, went to Germany. Over five years of fierce fighting, the Bolsheviks defeated the scattered enemy forces. The civil war split the country - after all Political Views They even forced relatives to fight against each other. Soviet Russia emerged from the conflict in ruins. Decreased by 40% rural production, almost the entire intelligentsia was destroyed, and the level of industry decreased by 5 times. In total, more than 10 million people died during the Civil War, and another 2 million left Russia in a hurry.

Taiping Rebellion. And again we will talk about civil war. This time it broke out in China in 1850-1864. In the country, the Christian Hong Xiuquan formed the Taiping heavenly kingdom. This state existed in parallel with the Manchu Qing Empire. The revolutionaries occupied almost all of southern China with a population of 30 million people. The Taipings began to carry out their drastic social transformations, including religious ones. This uprising led to a series of similar ones in other parts of the Qing Empire. The country was split into several regions that declared their own independence. The Taipings occupied such large cities as Wuhan and Nanjing, and troops sympathetic to them also occupied Shanghai. The rebels even launched campaigns against Beijing. However, all the concessions that the Taipings gave to the peasants were nullified by the protracted war. By the end of the 1860s, it became clear that the Qing dynasty could not put an end to the rebels. Then they entered the fight against the Taipings Western countries pursuing their own interests. It was only thanks to the British and French that the revolutionary movement was suppressed. This war led to a huge number of victims - from 20 to 30 million people.

World War I. The First World War marked the beginning of modern warfare as we know it. This global conflict took place from 1914 to 1918. The prerequisites for the outbreak of war were contradictions between the greatest powers of Europe - Germany, England, Austria-Hungary, France and Russia. By 1914, two blocs had taken shape - the Entente (Great Britain, France and Russian empire) and the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy). The reason for the outbreak of hostilities was the assassination of the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. In 1915, Italy entered the war on the side of the Entente, but the Turks and Bulgarians joined Germany. Even countries such as China, Cuba, Brazil, and Japan took the side of the Entente. By the beginning of the war, there were more than 16 million people in the armies of both sides. Tanks and planes appeared on the battlefields. The First World War ended with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on June 28, 1919. As a result of this conflict with political map Four empires disappeared at once: Russian, German, Austria-Hungary and Ottoman. Germany found itself so weakened and territorially reduced that this gave rise to revanchist sentiments that led to the Nazis coming to power. Participating countries lost more than 10 million soldiers killed, and more than 20 million civilians died due to famine and epidemics. Another 55 million people were injured.

Korean War. Today it appears that a new war is about to break out on the Korean Peninsula. And this situation began to develop in the early 1950s. After the end of World War II, Korea was divided into separate northern and southern territories. The former adhered to the communist course with the support of the USSR, while the latter were influenced by America. For several years, relations between the parties were very tense, until the northerners decided to invade their neighbors in order to unite the nation. At the same time, communist Koreans were supported not only by Soviet Union, but also the PRC with the help of its volunteers. And on the side of the South, in addition to the United States, also Great Britain and UN peacekeeping forces. After a year of active hostilities, it became clear that the situation had reached a dead end. Each side had an army of millions, and a decisive advantage was out of the question. Only in 1953 was a ceasefire signed and the front line was fixed at the 38th parallel. But a peace treaty that would formally end the war was never signed. The conflict destroyed 80% of Korea's entire infrastructure and killed several million people. This war only intensified the confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States.

Holy Crusades. Military campaigns in the 11th-15th centuries are known under this name. Medieval Christian kingdoms, with religious motivations, opposed the Muslim peoples who inhabited the sacred lands in the Middle East. First of all, the Europeans wanted to liberate Jerusalem, but then the Crusades began to pursue political and religious goals in other lands. Young warriors from all over Europe fought against Muslims in the territory of modern Turkey, Palestine and Israel, defending their faith. This global movement has great importance for the continent. First of all, there was a weakened eastern empire, which eventually fell under the rule of the Turks. The crusaders themselves brought home many oriental signs and traditions. The campaigns led to a rapprochement between classes and nationalities. The seeds of unity began to emerge in Europe. It was the Crusades that created the ideal of the knight. The most important consequence of the conflict is the penetration of the culture of the East into the West. There was also the development of navigation and trade. One can only guess about the number of victims due to the long-term conflict between Europe and Asia, but it is undoubtedly millions of people.

Mongol conquests. In the 13th-14th centuries, the conquests of the Mongols led to the creation of an empire of unprecedented size, which even had a genetic impact on some ethnic groups. The Mongols captured a vast territory of nine and a half million square miles. The empire stretched from Hungary to the East China Sea. The expansion lasted more than a century and a half. Many territories were devastated, cities and cultural monuments were destroyed. The most famous figure among the Mongols was Genghis Khan. It is believed that it was he who united the eastern nomadic tribes, which made it possible to create such an impressive force. In the occupied territories such states as Golden Horde, country of the Khuluguids, Yuan Empire. The number of human lives that the expansion took is between 30 and 60 million.

The Second World War. Just over twenty years after the end of the First World War, another global conflict broke out. The Second World War was, without a doubt, the largest military event in human history. The enemy troops numbered up to 100 million people, representing 61 states (out of 73 in total that existed at that time). The conflict lasted from 1939 to 1945. It began in Europe with the invasion of German troops into the territory of their neighbors (Czechoslovakia and Poland). It became clear that German dictator Adolf Hitler was striving for world domination. Great Britain and its colonies, as well as France, declared war on Nazi Germany. The Germans were able to capture almost all of Central and Western Europe, but the attack on the Soviet Union was fatal for Hitler. And in 1941, after the attack on the United States by Germany's ally, Japan, America entered the war. Three continents and four oceans became the theater of conflict. Ultimately, the war ended with the defeat and capitulation of Germany, Japan and their allies. And the USA still managed to use newest weapons- nuclear bomb. The total number of military and civilian casualties on both sides is believed to be around 75 million. As a result of the war, Western Europe lost its leading role in politics, and the USA and the USSR became world leaders. The war showed that colonial empires had become irrelevant, which led to the emergence of new independent countries.

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

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

Speaking about the conflicts of the late XX - beginning of the XXI c., we should dwell on two important issues that have not only theoretical, but also practical significance.

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

is)?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interstate conflicts have been replaced by internal conflicts that flow within the framework of one state. Among them can be divided into three groups:

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

2) between different ethnic or religious groups;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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