The Transpersonal War – Constituent of the Hybrid War

The study highlights aspects of the hybrid war waged by the Russian Federation in order to maintain, strengthen its areas of influence, penetrating areas inaccessible by classical means. The paper brings to the fore the nationalist interests, characteristics, objectives, tools and means used by the Russians in the current hybrid war. Using a reflective logic regarding the fact that there is a current of opinion in the US Armed Forces that argues that the real challenge for the United States is not the asymmetric war but the Transcendent War, I express the opinion that the Russian Federation also considers this issue. In this context, I draw attention to the research conducted in Romania on Distal Psychoinformational Influence as an offensive-defensive weapon that manifests itself without material support and acts subliminally, transcendently, in operations of knowledge, influence, domination and control of the opponent, both psychoemotional as well as somatic.

BIOPOLITICAL PRODUCTION OF LIFE AND THE «NEW WAR»: EXPERIENCE IN PHILOSOPHICAL INTERPRETATION

The change in the nature of war has been noted by most researchers over the past seventy years. In the last decade, an attempt has been made to integrate all significant and operating factors — in the concept of a «new war», the analysis and interpretation of which is an urgent research task. The authors of the article analyze the discourse of the «new war» in the horizon of presenting the modern political order in the liberal version of the economic paradigm of the political (J. Agamben’s term) in order to identify substantially new meanings that distinguish it from the concept of «classical war». «Horizon», «border», «meaning» and «representation» as elements of the paradigm can be the subject of exclusively philosophical interpretation. As a result of the conducted research, it has been established: «biopolitical production of life» is the way in which modernity becomes reality. Biopolitics is management, that is, the accomplished removal of the political is depoliticization. The asymmetric war is a biopolitical phenomenon in terms of the composition of actors, mode of conduct, goals; it is presented as «just», «permanent» and «legitimizing» the universal and global political order. The exclusion of a sovereign decision and an «empty space» as the center of the modern political order, the impossibility of drawing the border and the expansion of the «area of anomie» to the entire political space, the nondiscrimination of «external» and «internal», which is fundamental for understanding the specifics of the discourse of the «new war» means total depoliticization. The biopolitical power is opposed by «naked life» — war is presented as a police operation, the purpose of which is considered to pacify and normalize violence and suppress internal enemies. Philosophical interpretation as a method of research leads to a new (and partly inaccessible for disciplinary scientific research) conclusion: the «new war» appears to be a management tool aimed at «normalizing violence» — it is not a modernization of the classical war and is not in any continuity with it , but there is a new biopolitical phenomenon that essentially belongs to modernity. This conclusion, which distinguishes between «classical war» and «new war», allows us to exclude from the calculations the endless contradictions associated with attempts to view the «new war» in the political perspective, and not as governance. Thus, the possibility of disciplinary scientific research of a new war is revealed in the perspective of its representation as a phenomenon of modernity.

CHARACTERISTICS OF MODERN FEATURES OF «HYBRID WAR»

The emergence of global universal human solidarity acts as a historical pattern. The operation of this pattern in the process of globalization together with the implementation of the concept of sustainable development is at the very beginning. It is still far from the creation of a single global world, but the movement of the world community towards it has been steadily continuing since the emergence of mankind. It is obvious that the development of military operations, which we are witnessing, has long been not associated with serious breakthroughs in the field of science and technology. These factors act rather as concomitant ones. The basis of superiority on the battlefield is the ability to think strategically, as well as to use non-standard combat techniques, starting not only from the level of weapons and combat effectiveness, but also based on the cultural characteristics and even, in a sense, the mentality of the parties to the conflict. Considering the theoretical and methodological aspects of the problem, in our opinion, it is necessary to set a certain coordinate system to determine the nature and specifics of a hybrid conflict in two planes - directions (economic, military, cultural, international, socio-political, domestic, informational), as well as tools (the strategy of controlled chaos, the doctrine of “soft power”, the doctrine of color revolutions, the theory of reflexive control, the doctrine of unlimited war, the doctrine of rebelliousness, the doctrine of network-centric war, the concept of asymmetric war). Also, referring to applied research, one should take into account the chronological characteristics and specifics of hybrid conflicts, which are segmented within three stages - hidden (latent), semi-open and open.

Introduction: Paradise Has Walls

Taking point from a post-9/11 spiritual warfare narrative in which models of asymmetric war are used to reconceptualize the demonic, the Introduction argues that figures of the demonic are both consolidating and deconstructive of systems of power, particularly those tied to sovereignty, identity, and empire. Weaving together two definitions of demonology, by Bruce Lincoln and Marcella Althaus-Reid, respectively, it demonstrates that demonology operates as a rubric of knowledge aimed at the classification, comprehension, and control of nonhuman and dehumanized others—the demonized—who simultaneously unsettle those rubrics of knowledge by exposing their categories as constructed and not natural. Mobilizing queer and critical race theory, it then situates the demon’s deconstructive quality in its figuration of passing and counterfeiture, which unsettle territorial boundaries, stable identities, and linear models of temporality.

A Multi-Agent Model for Countering Terrorism

The rise of terrorism over the past decade did not only hinder the development of some countries, but also it continues to destroy humanity. To face this concept of an emerging crisis, every country and every citizen is responsible for the fight against terrorism. As conventional plans became useless against terrorism, governments are required to establish innovative concepts and technologies to support units in this asymmetric war. In this paper, we propose a new multi-agent model for counter-terrorism characterized by a methodical process and a flexibility to handle different contingency scenarios. The division of labour in our multi-agent model improves decision making and the structuring of organisational plans.

Humanitarian Terrorism as a Higher and Last Stage of Asymmetric War

The articles reviews the problem of humanitarian terrorism that is a terrorism of self-proclaimed humanitarian goals and self-inflicted constraints. This type of terrorism justifies itself by lofty aspirations and claims that its actions are targeted killings of guilty individuals only. This terrorism is the product of the Enlightenment, it emerged by the end of the 18th century and passed three stages in its development. The first stage is the classical terror of the Jacobins 1793–1794. The second one is Russian revolutionary terror of the end of the 19th – early 20th centuries. The third stage is the contemporary American warfare waged by the unmanned aerial vehicles, called drones. From the perspective of the contemporary just war theory, this terrorism is not only morally superior to the ordinary primitive terrorism of straightforward attacks on civilians (this terrorism may be no less fair in terms of self-imposed goals, but is doubtful in terms of means), but even contemporary war. Terrorists of this type kill the few but teach a lesson to many. But it must be clearly born in mind that humanitarian terrorism is not only the summit of just war but also the summit of absolute war. It is founded in personal and individual enmity, which makes the core of absolute enmity. Absolute enmity may at times be inevitable and even justified, but it blocks the road to peace. Revengeful spite, stemming from absolute enmity, is capable of creating its own phantoms of justice, propelling the war. The author concludes that the vicious circle is thus completed. The logic of just war drags in the direction humanitarian terrorism, humanitarian terrorism drags in the mire of absolute enmity. Absolute enmity proclaims just war.

Pulled Together or Torn Asunder? Community Cohesion After Symmetric and Asymmetric Civil War

Evidence on the consequences of war for community cohesion is mixed, pointing to both positive and negative effects of conflict. This study examines symmetry of force between warring actors as an explanation of heterogeneous conflict effects. Using survey data from 224 Colombian villages, I compare cohesion in communities exposed to asymmetric and symmetric conflicts, a guerrilla war between rebels and the state and a more conventional war between rebels and paramilitary groups, respectively. I find that symmetric war increases participation in community organizations, while asymmetric war decreases trust. Evidence suggests three mechanisms that explain these findings. Symmetric war increases cohesion (i) by spurring individuals to band together to cope with significant disruption of services and (ii) by strengthening group identities that map onto fairly clear wartime cleavages. Asymmetric war reduces cohesion (iii) by instilling fear and suspicion linked to wartime experiences of civilian collaboration and denunciations.