Macrofluctuations of the international system under the influence of global turbulence and hybrid wars

Let us consider the figure of a partisan. Partisan is a member of the armed struggle on the territory seized by an enemy, who acts as a member of volunteer groups that rely on the support of the local population. Irregular partisan is a defender of the interests of the people, yet he also is a bandit for the opposing side, because he does not adhere to the rules of warfare. Ernesto Che Guevara represents the partisan as a man whose goal is to realize the aspiration of the people to freedom. After all peaceful means to achievement of this goal are exhausted, the partisan begins to fight, becomes an armed vanguard of the fighting people. The purpose of this struggle is to destruct unjust order. It is typical for guerrilla warfare that each of its members is ready to die, but not to die in the name of the defense of an ideal, but to make this ideal a reality via one's own death. This is the foundation and essence of partisan struggle. This explains the miracle that a small detachment of people, armed avant-garde of the masses who support it, struggles decisively to destroy the old society and establish a new one, to achieve social justice [52].

Certain resemblance of the partisan movement to terrorism allowed a number of scholars to partly or completely equate these phenomena. Terrorism has become a fundamentally new factor that has been incorporated into the strategy of partisan warfare by militants from the Middle East. An important characteristic here is the «right» of the partisan terrorists to fight not only with the enemy soldier, but also with the civilian population - either the enemy's population or even one's own, if they are helping the enemy. This is a total war, built on the principles of partisan resistance [53]. However, there is also another point of view. American scholar of terrorism Paul Wilkinson notes that the main difference between the partisans and terrorists may be the damage to the civilians. In his work «Terrorism and the liberal state», scholar noted: «Partisans can fight in small numbers and often with insufficient weapons, but they can and often fight according to the rules of the traditional war, taking and exchanging prisoners and respecting the rights of the civilians. Terrorists do not distinguish between the means they use and often resort to widespread murders, spreading 'general terror' to local civilians» [54, p. 54]. While for guerrilla warfare as a specific method of warfare, sober calculation, weighed and comprehensive assessment of the situation, military expediency of future actions, clear and well thought out planning are always in the first place.

We can discern yet another subject of a «hybrid» war - a rebel. The rebels are essentially the same by forms and methods of action as partisans. The difference is that the partisans are fighting against the aggressor occupying the territory of their country, and the rebels - against their own government. Therefore, we can say that country's own special forces and parts of regular troops that found themselves in the enemy's rear because of the military fate participate in in the partisan movement, while special forces of a foreign state interested in overthrowing the ruling regime participate in the rebel movement.

And last thing we want to consider, is an information warfare that is carried out continuously throughout the hybrid war. Moreover, it usually begins long before the first armed actions and is deliberately aimed at destroying the spiritual world of nations and peoples against whom it is being conducted. Jean Baudrillard's theory of simulacra [55] forms the basis of the contemporary information warfare. According to this theory, simulacra become increasingly detached from reproduction of the real, and eventually become completely autonomous, detached from reality that they originally represented. Depending on the historical period, Jean Baudrillard identified three categories of simulacra. The closer we get to the contemporary times, the more each of them are detached from examples of the real world. So, the simulacra of the first order still indicate the original source; a baroque fake can serve as an example of this. The Industrial Revolution, with its mechanized production process prompted second-order simulacra, when mass produced series of analogous equivalent copies are created. Finally, the postmodern period created the third order of simulacra, which, due to the close connection with the means of communication and mass media, form simulated hyperreality that is more realistic than reality itself. In the postmodern age a large number of simulacra exists. They are the false signs, which, having separated from their prototypes, substitute the true meaning, thus creating a world completely different to the one in which people used to live. This world was created so swiftly that people turned out to be unprepared to meet with it. Thanks to the efforts of the experts in the information warfare, such simulacra as «banderivets», «Right sector», «Kyiv fascist junta», «terrorist», «separatist», «Novorosiya», «Donetsk People's Republic» etc. appear. And they are more frightening than real instances of violence or natural disasters that are experienced in reality. Any war, including hybrid one, will end at some point. Yet the information warfare for people's minds and hearts will never end, since we entered the information age, where information becomes the main source of wealth and well-being of the people. How it will reach people, what world they will create - either European, Russian, or some other - depends on every individual, on civil society and on the state.

Conclusions of the research

Contemporary international system is currently in a state of transitional from the unipolar world to polipolar one, from the stability that prevailed after the collapse of the world socialist system to the qualitatively new international system with several fulcrums. But this process is very complex and prolonged; it will be constantly influenced by the new «geopolitcal shifts», as factors contributing to global turbulence and macro fluctuations of the transitional international system: the final collapse of the colonial system; the destruction of the model of the «bipolar world» and the emergence of sovereign states that implement their own geostrategies on a world arena; problems of coexistence of countries of stable and transitional democracy, autocracies and specific quasi-states; strategic shift of the Baltic-Black Sea arc to the borders of Russia with the Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia; the global economic jump of Southeast Asia as a subregional system; increase in economic competition of strategic partners - the USA and the European Union; an increase in military-political tension between the Russian Federation and the US and NATO, and so on.

The complex synergy of the aforementioned geopolitical factors at the moment does not provide an opportunity to overcome the hierarchical nature of the planetary system and to establish multipolar «balance of forces» that would guarantee the high stability, because its main condition is the «equilibrium of the capacities» of the actors. We should not also forget that regardless of the relative unity, international system has certain destructions and geopolitical enclaves, conditioned by the excesses of the relations, national paradoxes etc. In particular, multipolar system has its own risks, such as proliferation of the nuclear arms, unforeseen consequences of the change of configuration of the union of the large states, emergence of conflicts between small actors or increase of the risks of international crime and hybrid wars.

References

1. Huntzinger, J. (1987). Introduction aux relations internationales. Paris: Le Seuil.

2. Herasina, L. M., & Trebin, M. P. (2020). «Zlamy svitosystemy»: hlobalni zrushennia ta hibridni vyklyky [«Fissure of the world system»: global shifts and hybrid challenges]. Visnyk Natsionalnoho yurydychnoho universytetu imeni Yaroslava Mudroho. Seriia: Filosofiia, filosofiia prava, politolohiia, sotsiolohiia - Bulletin of the Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University. Series: Philosophy, Philosophy of Law, Political Science, Sociology, 4 (47), 72-93.

3. Easton, D. (1979). A systems analysis of political life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

4. Easton, D. (1990). The analysis of political structure. New York: Routledge.

5. Kaplan, M. A. (1957). System and Process in International Politics. New York: John Wiley.

6. Parsons, T. (1991). The social system / with a new preface by Bryan S. Turner. London: Routledge.

7. Hoffmann, S. (1961). Theorie et relations internationales. Revue franqaise de science politique, 11 (2), 413-433.

8. Polin, C. (1971). David Easton, ou les difficultes d'une certaine sociologie politique. Revue franqaise de Sociologie, XI-XII (spec.), 183-193.

9. Aron, R. (2006). Paix et guerre entre les nations. Paris: Calmann-Levy.

10. Luard, E. (1976). Types of international society. New York: Free Press.

11. Rosecrance, R. N. (1963). Action and Reaction in World Politics: International Systems in Perspective. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

12. Cohen, S. B. (2010). Evaluating Systemic Geopolitics - A Twenty-First Century View, Geopolitics, 15 (1), 157-164.

13. Cox, M. (2019). The post Cold War world: turbulence and change in world politics since the fall. London; New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

14. Dussouy, G. (2010). Systemic Geopolitics: A Global Interpretation Method of the World. Geopolitics, 15 (1), 133-150.

15. Jervis, R. (2010). Thinking Systemically about Geopolitics. Geopolitics, 15(1), 165171.

16. Kaplan, R. D. (2009). Center Stage for the Twenty-first Century: Power Plays in the Indian Ocean. Foreign Affairs, 88 (2), 16-29, 31-32.

17. Freedman, L. (2017). The future of war: a history. New York: Public Affairs.

18. Kaldor, M. (2013). In Defence of New Wars. Stability, 2 (1): 4, 1-16,

19. Krotiuk, V. A. (ed.) (2021). Viiny informatsiinoi epokhy: mizhdystsyplinarnyi dyskurs [Wars of the information age: interdisciplinary discourse]: monohrafiia. Kharkiv: FOP Fedorko M. Yu. [in Ukrainian].

20. Malesevic, S. (2010). The sociology of war and violence. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

21. Murray, W., & Mansoor, P. R. (2012). Hybrid warfare: fighting complex opponents from the ancient world to the present. New York: Cambridge University Press.

22. Patrikarakos, D. (2017). War in 140 characters : how social media is reshaping conflict in the twenty-first century. New York: Basic Books.

23. Simons, G., & Chifu, I. (2018). The changing face of warfare in the 21st century. London; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

24. Trebin, M. (2005). Voynyi XXI veka [Wars of 21st century]. Moskva: AST; Minsk: Harvest [in Russian].

25. Van Creveld, M. (1991). The transformation of war. New York: Free Press; Toronto: Collier Macmillan Canada; New York: Maxwell Macmillan International.

26. Van Creveld, M. (2017). More on war. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

27. Braillard, P (1977). Theories desrelations internationals. Paris: P U. F.

28. Herasina, L. M., Pohribna, V. L., & Trebin, M. P., et al. (2016). Teoriia mizhnarodnykh vidnosyn. Mizhnarodni vidnosyny ta svitova polityka [The theory of international relations. International relations and world politics]. Kharkiv: Pravo [in Ukrainian].

29. Andrain, C. F. (1994). Comparative political systems: policy performance and social change. Armonk, N. Y.: M. E. Sharpe.

30. Lijphart, A. (1984). Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.

31. Carter, J. H., & Warren, R. (2019). Forging the modern world: a history. Second edition. New York: Oxford University Press.

32. Dickinson, E. R. (2017). The world in the long twentieth century: an interpretation. Oakland, California: University of California Press.

33. Estevadeordal, A., & Goodman, L. W. (eds.) (2017). 21st century cooperation: regional public goods, global governance, and sustainable development. London; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

34. Jindal, N., & Kumar, K. (eds.) (2018). Global politics: issues and perspectives. New Delhi, India; Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.

35. Laurent, E. (2018). Measuring tomorrow: accounting for well-being, resilience, and sustainability in the twenty-first century. Princeton; Oxford: Princeton University Press.

36. Braillard, P., & Djalili, M.-R. (2016). Les relations internationales. 10e edition. Paris: P. U. F. 128 p.

37. Mattis, J. N., & Hoffman, F. G. (2005). Future Warfare: The Rise of Hybrid Wars. US Naval Institute Proceedings Magazine, 132/11/1,233, 18-19.

38. Hoffman, F. G. (2006). Complex Irregular Warfare: The Next Revolution in Military Affairs. Orbis, 50 (3), 395-411.

39. Hoffman, F. G. (2007). Conflict in the 21st Century: The Rise of Hybrid Wars. Arlington, VA: Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.

40. Hoffman, F. G. (2009a). Hybrid Warfare and Challenges. Joint Force Quarterly, 1st Quarter (52), 34-39.

41. Hoffman, F. G. (2009b). Hybrid Threats: Reconceptualizing the Evolving Character of Modern Conflict. Strategic Forum, April (240), 1-8.

42. Hoffman, F. G. (2009c). Hybrid vs. compound war. Armed Forces Journal, October. Retrieved from: http://armedforcesjournal.com/hybrid-vs-compound-war/.

43. Hoffman, F. G. (2010). «Hybrid Threats»: Neither Omnipotent Nor Unbeatable. Orbis, 54 (3), 441-455.

44. Hoffman, F. G. (2014). The Real «Forever War». Orbis, 58 (2), 297-301.

45. Hoffman, F. G. (2016). Foresight into 21st Century Conflict: End of the Greatest Illusion? Foreign Policy Research Institute. The Philadelphia Papers. September.

46. Trebin, M. P., & Chernyshova, T O. (2017). Evoliutsiia viin kriz pryzmu revoliutsii u viiskovii spravi [The evolution of wars through the prism of revolutions in military affairs]. Suchasna viina: humanitarnyi aspekt. Naukovo-praktychna konferentsiia Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu Povitrianykh Syl imeni Ivana Kozheduba, 30 chervnia 2017 roku: tezy dopovidei - Modern war: the humanitarian aspect. Scientific and practical conference of Ivan Kozhedub Kharkiv National University Air Force, June 30, 2017: abstracts, Pp. 16-21. Kharkiv: KhNUPS im. I. Kozheduba [in Ukrainian].

47. Bjerregaard, T (2012). Hybrid Warfare: A Military Revolution or Revolution in Military Affairs? Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

48. Herasina, L. M., Panfilov, O. Yu., & Pohribna, V. L., et al. (2020). Sotsiolohiia prava: entsyklopedychnyi slovnyk [Sociology of law: encyclopedic dictionary] / za red. M. P. Trebina. Kharkiv: Pravo [in Ukrainian].

49. Gorlach, N. I., & Trebin, M. P. (eds.) (2006). Sovremennyj terrorizm [Modern terrorism]. Uchebnoe posobie dlja vysshej shkoly. Har'kov: Timchenko [in Russian].

50. Alexander, Y., Carlton, D., & Wilkinson, P. (eds.) (1979). Terrorism: Theory and Practice. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

51. Kelman, H. (1973). Violence without Moral Restraint: Reflection on the Dehumanisation of Victims and Victimizers. The Journal of Social Issues, 29 (4), 25-63.

52. Guevara, C. (1969). Guerrilla warfare / prefatory note by I. F Stone; translated from the Spanish by J. P. Morray. New York : Vintage Books.

53. Schmitt, C. (2007). Theory of the partisan: intermediate commentary on the concept of the political / translated by G. L. Ulmen. New York: Telos Press Pub.

54. Wilkinson, P. (1986). Terrorism & the Liberal State. 2nd edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

55. Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacres et simulation. Paris: Galilee.

Размещено на Allbest.ru