The Theory of War and Peace : The Geophilosophy of Europe [1 ed.] 9781443879569, 9781443898836

Citation preview

The Theory of War and Peace

The Theory of War and Peace: The Geophilosophy of Europe By

Oleg Bazaluk

The Theory of War and Peace: The Geophilosophy of Europe By Oleg Bazaluk Translated by Tamara Blazhevych Proofreading by Lloyd Barton This book first published 2017 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2017 by Oleg Bazaluk All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-4438-4876-X ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-4876-3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ................................................................................... vii Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Chapter One ................................................................................................. 5 The Problem of War and Peace: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis 1.1 The categories of good and evil as a theoretical basis for war and peace .......................................................................................... 7 1.2 War and peace in the theories of international relations ................ 10 1.3 War and Peace in the history and literature.................................... 29 Conclusion of Chapter One .................................................................. 31 Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 35 Methodology and Axiomatics of the Theory of War and Peace 2.1 Research Methodology .................................................................. 35 2.2 Axiomatics of the Theory of War and Peace ................................. 38 Conclusion of Chapter Two ................................................................. 43 Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 45 The Features of Manifestations of a Mental Space in the Locus 3.1 In what ways does a mental space realize its potentials in the locus?..... 47 3.2 What does a locus of civilization mean for the mental space? ....... 59 3.3 What factors influence the manifestations of a mental space in the locus of civilization? ............................................................ 64 Conclusion of Chapter Three ............................................................... 66 Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 69 The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space, or the Theory of War and Peace 4.1 The definition of war and peace ..................................................... 70 4.2 The causes of endless localisation of Earth’s space, or otherwise – the causes of war ............................................................................ 71 4.3 The causes of endless localisation of Earth’s space, or otherwise – the causes of peace ....................................................................... 102 4.4 The theory of war and peace. The main assertions ...................... 105 Conclusion of Chapter Four ............................................................... 108

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter Five ............................................................................................ 111 The Philosophy of War and Peace 5.1 Comprehension of war and peace in Plato’s line ......................... 111 5.2 The theory of war and peace in philosophical comprehension .... 114 5.3 War and Peace is a prerogative of educational technologies ....... 121 Conclusion of Chapter Five ............................................................... 127 Chapter Six .............................................................................................. 129 The Theory of War and Peace About Endless Localisation in Europe in the 20th and the Beginning of the 21st centuries 6.1 The features of geophilosophy of Europe .................................... 132 6.2 Regularity of endless localisation in Europe of the 20th and beginning of 21st century. The prognostic potential of the theory of war and peace ..................................................... 136 Conclusion of Chapter Six ................................................................. 147 Chapter Seven.......................................................................................... 149 The European Security Strategy 7.1 A brief history of the development of the European Security Strategy ........................................................................................ 150 7.2 The features of the geophilosophy of Europe after the collapse of the USSR (1991–2013) ............................................................ 152 7.3 A new theoretical framework of the European Security Strategy .. 163 Conclusion of Chapter Seven............................................................. 169 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 171 Bibliography ............................................................................................ 175

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author has started writing this book twice. The first version was written primarily thanks to Cambridge Scholars Publishing, my desire to fulfill a civic duty to the motherland – Ukraine - and thanks to Tatiana Matusevych, who undertook to translate the book into English, as well as taking part in its writing. In late 2014, a book entitled “War in Ukraine – the Turn to European Values” co-authored with Tatiana Matusevych was sent to Cambridge Scholars Publishing. In early 2016, the book was returned to render the new translation, because the quality of the translation was poor and did not correspond to the user level. After reading the book again, I concluded that it made no sense whatsoever to correct. By that time, the expert opinions on the events in Ukraine were published in many languages, and I felt that my emotional attitude to Ukraine had lost its relevance and value. My desire was to write a fundamental research of war and peace. Thus, having analysed literature in Russian, Ukrainian, and English, I found that the discourse on the problem of war and peace was mainly in English. Therefore, only after Tamara Blazhevych agreed to translate the manuscript in English, I started the work on the book. Within a few months, I have plunged into the study of the problem of war and peace and written a completely new book, the terminology of which was a source of great confusion for Tamara, and often led her to despair. She needed to find the right words to convey my thoughts accurately, which is why she had to turn to research in neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, political science, military history, etc. I am very thankful to her for her patience and professionalism. I hope she managed to penetrate and convey the meaning of my thoughts. I also want to thank Lloyd Barton, the proofreader of Cambridge Scholars Publishing for his work and professionalism. It is the third book of our fruitful collaboration. Sincere thanks go to the reviewers of the book. First of all, I am grateful to Professor Sergei Krichevsky, who advised that I change the structure of

viii

Acknowledgements

the book, and insisted on using my research in the field of cosmic philosophy by analysing the problems of war and peace. Thanks to his advice, as well as communication with Professors Sergey Klepko and Roman Dodonov, I paid more attention to the philosophy of war and peace. Professor Boris Zlokazov’s and Professor Denis Sviridenko’s advice helped me to find “weak spots” in the theory that allowed to reinforce its argumentation. This book is dedicated to Ivan Ilyin, who, along with Vladimir Vernadsky and Vladimir Vysotsky, is a master of my creative activity and professionalism. Dear Ivan Aleksandrovich, I hope my book “The Theory of War and Peace: The Geophilosophy of Europe” corresponds, at least a little bit, to the level of your works “On Resistance to Evil by Force”, “The Path of Spiritual Renewal”, and “Path to the Evidence.” At the beginning of my creative process, your books impressed me with the depth of penetration into the mysteries of human existence, the mesmerising syllable in presentation and sincerity, which bordered on the cry of the soul. For me, you remain the unsurpassed master of the clear and emotional presentation of philosophical thought. Oleg Bazaluk Kyiv, August 2016

INTRODUCTION

The history of this book began February 19 2014, in Kyiv, when the author decided to publish commentaries from the central square of the capital of Ukraine – Independence Square (Maidan Nezalezhnosti). It was at that time when, under the control of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, the police units shot people who arrived at the square in Kyiv who were against corruption, usurpation of power, and restrictions on civil rights and freedoms. The author wrote his reportages to mainly inform citizens from southeastern Ukraine – the colleagues, the friends, and readers of the Russian Federation – for all those who speak and read in Russian. Using his credibility of the officer1 and the scientist2, the author tried to oppose someone’s sick imagination, which presented the struggle of the Ukrainian people for independence, and their violent future with Ukrainian nationalists against Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the media. The author believed naively that his real emotional reportages from the heart of the capital would affect the minds of the Russian-reading audience and compete with strings of lies, filling Ukrainian, Russian, and some European, information space... Two years have now passed. On the one hand, from reportages, the book “War in Ukraine: Reportages from the burning Kyiv. Two bloody days in February” [Bazaluk, 2014] was published, which, judging by the number 1

From 1985 to 1989, I studied in one of the best educational institutions of Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR, Ordzhonikidze Military Command College named after Sergei Kirov (now North-Caucasian Military Institute of Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation). In June 1989, I graduated it with honors. From 1989 to 1992, I served in Independent Special-Purpose Motorized Rifle Division F. E. Dzerzhinsky of the MVD Internal Troops. As a cadet and an officer I went on special missions for international conflict resolution to Georgia, Moldova, twice in Azerbaijan and Armenia. I have the Government Awards. 2 A specialist in the theory of consciousness and cognition, philosophy of education.

2

Introduction

of broken relationships in Russian society, has not found a response from those to whom it was intended. On the other hand, Russia annexed the Crimea and went to war in the Donbas. The actions that the Russian Federation carried out according to plan, and would go on to carry out against Ukraine, demanded a separate comprehension. A sense of civic duty, as well as interest, from Cambridge Scholars Publishing inspired the author to tackle the new problem – comprehension of war and peace. Ukrainian politicians and officials call the events that occur in southeastern Ukraine “anti-terrorist operations” (ATO) and emerging Ukrainian civil society the “War against Russia.” In the Russian Federation and the pro-Russian publications abroad, the events in Ukraine are called “Civil War” or “War of the Ukrainian nationalists against the Russian-speaking population.” Journalists and researchers from Western civilization have called the events in Ukraine “Armed conflict between pro-Russian mercenaries and the Armed Forces of Ukraine”, or, more often, “Hybrid War of the Russian Federation against Ukraine.” However, although the events in south-eastern Ukraine would not be mentioned, they have caused: – A violation of international security agreements in Europe. – The military aggression of one European country against another and the consequent annexation of the territory. – EU economic sanctions against the Russian Federation. – The flow of refugees. – Changes in the European security strategy. Most importantly, the war being waged by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, and ways of war, again updated the thinking and philosophy behind war and peace. The author wrote the first version of the book, titled “War in Ukraine – the Turn to European Values”, within a short period. The book was based on the reportages that the author wrote in 2014 for the online publication “Ukrainian Politician” (http://www.ukrpolitic.com/). The book offered an emotional evaluation of the events in Ukraine. However, through continuing to study literature on the subject, the author found the prevalence of emotional evaluations over impartial analytics. In Russian, Ukrainian, and English, the writers and research teams described their sensory-emotional attitudes to events in Ukraine and evaluated them

The Theory of War and Peace: The Geophilosophy of Europe

3

from their life, experiences, and peculiarities of world perception. For instance, in the Russian language, books were published by Alexander Dugin [Dugin, 2015] and Boris Rozhin [Rozhin, 2015]; in Ukrainian, Olga Kalinovska, Oleg Krishtop, Eugen Nazarenko, Valentina Trokhimchuk and Darina Fedenko [Kalɿnovska et al., 2015], Yaroslav Potapenko [Potapenko, 2016], Roman Dodonov [Dodonov, 2016]; and in English, Anders Aslund [Aslund, 2015], Maksymilian Czuperski, Eliot Higgins, Alina Polyakova and Damon Wilson [Czuperski et al., 2015], Rajan Menon and Eugene B. Rumer [Menon & Rumer, 2015], Greg Norton [Norton, 2014], Richard Sakwa [Sakwa, 2015], a collective monograph edited by Artis Pabriks and Andis Kudors [The War in Ukraine, 2015], Elizabeth A. Wood, William E. Pomeranz, E. Wayne Merry, and Maxim Trudolyubov [Wood et al., 2015], Serhy Yekelchyk [Yekelchyk, 2015], and others. A sufficient number of emotional evaluations of the events in Ukraine spoke about one thing – there was no point in repeating. That is why there was a desire to rewrite a book, already prepared for publication by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, in which the author relied too much on theory. The previous work on the book “Corruption in Ukraine: Rulers’ Mentality and the Destiny of the Nation, the Geophilosophy of Ukraine” [Bazaluk, 2016] has opened up possibilities for the author concerning the methodology of geophilosophy. In geophilosophy, war in Ukraine, as well as the actions of the Russian Federation, the countries of Western Europe, and the United States, appeared as a fragment of regular events, which were not only possible to anticipate and prevent, but which in general repeated a prelude of the First and Second World Wars. A comparison inevitably comes to mind that required theoretical understanding. The empirical and theoretical basis of the book: “The Theory of War and Peace: The Geophilosophy of Europe” on which the author has built the system of his ideas, consists of three main blocks: 1. The facts and regularities from the field of neuroscience, psychology, and social philosophy. 2. The facts and regularities from the field of geophilosophy. 3. The facts and regularities from the field of military history and a history of the art of war. In the book, the author consistently solves six objectives:

4

Introduction

1. He carries out historical and philosophical analysis of the problem of war and peace; 2. He defines the methodology and axiomatics of the theory of war and peace. 3. Using the methodology of geophilosophy, he formulates the basic concepts of the theory of war and peace. 4. He comprehends the results and builds the philosophy of war and peace. 5. Based on the analysis of the geophilosophy of Europe in the 20th and early 21st centuries, he checks the basic assertions of the theory of war and peace, as well as its prognostic potential. 6. He offers a new theoretical basis for the establishment of the European Security Strategy.

CHAPTER ONE THE PROBLEM OF WAR AND PEACE: A HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS

§ 1. In the article “War and Peace in Semantic Space of Philosophy: A Methodological Aspect”, Alexander Stepanov has tried to understand a variety of meanings of the concepts “war” and “peace” [Stepanov, 2007]. He highlighted six semantic aspects in the concepts “war” and “peace”: formal logical, existential, ontological, axiological, praxeological, and epistemological. As a result of the analysis, Stepanov came to the following conclusions [Stepanov, 2007]: 1. As for the formal logical aspect, it is noteworthy that the definition of the word “peace” is often given in the negative form, i.e. as an opposite to war, feud, quarrel, rivalry, violence, etc. The word “war”, unlike the word “peace” has a positive, direct definition, and is often used in a broader sense, as a synonym for “struggle”, “conflict”, “opposition”, etc. 2. As to the existential aspect, at first view, the word “war” is concerned with “death”, and the word “peace” with “life.” However, since Heraclitus’ time, one can reveal the paradoxical development of the philosophical thought: the concept of “war” is connotatively concerned with “life”, or existence that is on the verge between being and non-being, and the concept “peace” – with “death” as a state of absolute tranquillity. “Rest in Peace”, people say to someone who has died. 3. The same paradoxical feature is observed concerning the ontological aspect: “war” is immanent and phenomenal, whereas “peace” is transcendental and noumenal. “War” is concerned with movement, change, and formation, and consequently, with time and space; “peace” is concerned with constancy, tranquillity and eternity. “War” is a natural, innate state of the world. “Peace” is

6

Chapter One

something artificial that requires external efforts for its emergence or formation. 4. By considering the axiological aspect, in most cases, “war” is the absolute evil, whereas “peace” – the absolute good. 5. As for the praxeological aspect or the aspect of activity, “war” is the means, and “peace” is the aim. People fight for “peace”, often using war. 6. Regarding the epistemological aspect, the existence of such characteristics as denotations, phenomenality and immanence, localisation in time and space et al. indicates that the concept “war” is the research subject of the methods of the empirical sciences. In turn, such characteristics as the absence of empirical denotations, transcendence, noumenality, purposeful representation et al. indicate that the concept “peace” is studied only by the philosophical methods, without reference to empirical reality. From the research of meanings of the concepts of “war” and “peace”, Alexander Stepanov concludes that: “Innate character of “war” gives a possibility to describe it by the language of the natural sciences, or by the phenomenal language of spontaneous processes, habitat conditions, as well as including the use of scientific terminology and regularities. The artificiality of “peace” requires the use of teleological terminology: aims, projects, norms, techniques, etc.” [Stepanov, 2007: 34]. From the research of meanings of the concepts of “war” and “peace,” Alexander Stepanov concludes that: “Innate character of “war” gives a possibility to describe it by the language of the natural sciences or by the phenomenal language of spontaneous processes, habitat conditions, as well as including the use of scientific terminology and regularities. The artificiality of “peace” requires the use of teleological terminology: aims, projects, norms, techniques, etc.” [Stepanov, 2007: 34]. § 2. We cannot agree with all of the conclusions of Alexander Stepanov, but a variety of meanings of the concepts “war” and “peace” definitely stand. Many different views on the problem of “war” and “peace” were substantively explored for several millennia. From our point of view, the theoretical and empirical basis of “war” and “peace” was made up principally from research in three areas:

The Problem of War and Peace: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis

1. 2. 3.

7

Religion, ethics, philosophy and psychology, as comprehension of the normative-evaluative categories of good and evil. Philosophy, political science, sociology and jurisprudence, in the theories of international relations. History, fiction as well as documentary, memoir, reference, technical literature on the subject of “war” and “peace.”

For such a significant amount of time, there was a wealth of factual and theoretical material accumulated in each of the three areas of research, which highlights the problem of “war” and “peace” in all variety of its meanings. To understand the scope of coverage and a range of research on the problem of “war” and “peace,” as well as the level of achievements in this field, let us briefly examine the history of “war” and “peace” in each of these three areas, proposed by us.

1.1 The categories of good and evil as a theoretical basis for war and peace § 3. Almost five thousand years ago, Zoroaster, a priest and the founder of Zoroastrianism (Mazdaism), presented good and evil in his sermons as the two highest spirits of worship, and as not having anything in common with each other. Gods Ahura Mazda (Illuminating Wisdom) and Angra Mainyu (Destructive Spirit) were in irreconcilable conflict with each other. Zoroaster urged to follow God Ahura Mazda, who was the patron saint of righteous men and the forces of Good. For the Western world, the ideas of Zoroaster about the Gods of Wisdom and Destruction, over several thousand years of development, turned into a religion that had gone through various smaller sects. By about 400 BC, based on this religion, two general lines of philosophising in the history of culture were formed. Alexander Lyubishchev called them the “lines” of Democritus and Plato [Lyubishchev, 2000]. According to Lyubishchev, Democritus’ line (natural philosophy, materialist philosophy, etc.) is a dead one, and Plato’s line, thanks to free theoretical creativity, lack of dogmatism, synthetic nature of the research and rationalism (different from skeptical rationalism of Democritus’ line), is the main line of the development of science to this day [Lyubishchev 2000: 110]. Around 360 BC, in the treatise “Timaeus”, Plato put forward the idea of the unity of nature of good and evil [Plato, 1994]. In the third century AD, Plotinus, who was a follower of Plato, wrote about the unity of good and

8

Chapter One

evil as an obvious reality. In the collection of writings “The Six Enneads” of Plotinus, edited and compiled by his follower Porphyry (c. 270 AD), we find the following: proof of the existence of “the greatest power, to be able to use even the evil nobly, and to be strong enough to use things which have become shapeless for making other shapes” [Plotinus, 1967: 61]. The reasoning that was set out in “The Six Enneads” by Plotinus about the unity of good and evil, as well as the consequences of this unity, so impressed the Christian theologian Aurelius Augustine that he created a whole system of worldviews from this idea, which maintained its relevance for more than a thousand years. Between 380 and 430 AD, Augustine argued that everything in the world that was created by God, in one way or another was involved in absolute good, in the depth of which, by necessity, was born evil. For example, in 398 AD, in the seventh autobiographical book “Confessions”, Augustine wrote: “Who made me? Was it not my God, who is not only good but goodness itself?” [Augustine, 2007]. God created all things good (“Thou made all things good”). However, due to that fact, “nor is there any substance at all that was not made by You; and because all that You have made are not equal, therefore all things are; because individually they are good, and altogether very good, because our God made all things very good” [Augustine, 2007]. It is from here, from a variety of the unity, formed by the divine harmony of the world, according to Augustine, evil emerged. Evil is something that disturbs the harmony, created by God. In Augustine’s “Confessions”, evil is a weakened good that is a necessary step towards good. Developing his system of views of good and evil, Augustine constantly mentioned Plotinus, his idea of the primacy of good, and that “evil as a falling short of good” [Plotinus, 1967: 61]. Therefore, Augustine concluded that “good” could not be understood without “evil.” Augustine had his system of views on the fact that God is good and evil is a necessity, due to which the understanding of good became possible in principle, turned into dogma. In the second half of the 13th century (after almost 800 years), Thomas Aquinas responded to the objection that not every being is good, only because there is evil in the world, so no evil is good: “Woe to you that call evil good and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20). He answered authoritatively the following: “every being, as being, is good”, and that “no being can be spoken of as evil, formally as being, but only so far as it lacks being” [Aquinas, 2008].

The Problem of War and Peace: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis

9

The authority of Augustine remained so strong that the statement “God is good” did not require proof. Biblical infallibility and Biblical inerrancy developed the persistent stereotypes of views, which, for hundreds of centuries, considerably expanded and specified the categories of good and evil, having turned them into the regulatory-evaluative categories through which all manifestations of human activity, including war and peace, were examined. Only in the middle of the 17th century did the dogmatic perception of the regulatory-evaluative categories of good and evil reach a new level of comprehension. Immanuel Kant translated Horace’s dictum “Sapere aude!” as “Have the courage to use your own reason!” and proclaimed it as the motto of the Enlightenment [Kant, 1966]. The problem of good and evil from the field of theology and philosophising passed into a plane of life practices and became regarded as the manifestation of concrete actions. The categories of good and evil began to be studied in ethics, psychology and political science, and were implemented in everyday life. The numerous theories and concepts exploring the nature of good and evil, and the features of its manifestation in human activity, have emerged. For example, in the variety of theories about the origin of good, we can highlight the following research areas: a) Transcendental realism. The representatives: Immanuel Kant, Eduard von Hartmann, Tony Lawson, and others. b) Perfectionism. The studies of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Anthony Shaftesbury, Wolfgang Pauli, and others. c) Hedonism and Welfarist theories: Epicurus, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Meher Baba and others. d) Pragmatism: John Dewey, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and others. e) Emotivism: David Hume, Charles Stevenson, Bertrand Russell, Alfred Jules Ayer and some others. In the study of the origin of evil, Lars Svendsen identified four strategies [Svendsen, 2008: 12]: a) People are possessed (or seduced) by supernatural powers of evil. b) Human nature determines a behaviour that we can denote as evil. c) The influence of the external environment creates people that generate evil. d) People are free and do their choice in favour of evil.

10

Chapter One

A certain number of theories correspond to each identified strategy. For example, the fourth strategy corresponds to the theory of freedom for good and evil of Friedrich von Schelling; the theory of radical evil of Immanuel Kant [Kant, 1966]; the theory of banal evil of Hannah Arendt [Arendt, 1965], and others1. In the theories of good and evil, the problem of war and peace is studied as a special case. Moreover, for the most part, it is understood clearly: good is peace, evil is war. Even “just war”, as a concept that originated from Aristotle and Cicero, sets itself the aim of preventing evil, and not achieving good. The evidence of peace as good and war as evil forced researchers to turn their attention not to the research of war and peace as the manifestations of being, but to the study of more fundamental and defining processes. For example, to the ontology of good and evil (Martin Heidegger [Heidegger, 1997]); or to the study of the features of the manifestations of good and evil that concentrate on the moral, political, and psychological components of this problem (for example, Lars Svendsen [Svendsen, 2008]). Against the background of religious, philosophical, ethical, political, and psychological comprehension of the categories of good and evil, the concepts of war and peace were perceived as immanent. Only Hugo Grotius in his treatise “The three books of the Law of War and Peace”, published in 1625, considered the problem of war and peace as a selfcontained problem, but only in the context of the theory of international law. For other scholars, until 1832, before the publication of the writings “On War” of German General Carl von Clausewitz, the categories of good and evil had a deeper and broader context. Part of which, if necessary, they used to explain war and peace.

1.2 War and peace in the theories of international relations § 4. The second important area, which forms the theoretical and empirical basis of war and peace, is the development of the theories of international relations in philosophy, political science, sociology, and law. In the

1

The philosophy of evil is researched in details in the similar-named book of Lars Svendsen [Svendsen, 2008].

The Problem of War and Peace: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis

11

theories of international relations, the consideration of the problem of war and peace comes to the fore. Edward Hallett Carr [Carr, 1964], Gennady Novikov [Novikov, 1996], Boris Chicherin [Chicherin, 2001], and other researchers believe that when analyzing the features of the use of war and peace, force and law, national selfishness and universal organization, and others in the policy of the state (i.e. when considering the political relations between the states), there are two dominant ideological traditions that remain relevant to this day. Both traditions originated in ancient Greece. By and large, we are talking about the origin of the two lines of philosophising that Alexander Lyubishchev called the lines of Democritus and Plato [Lyubishchev, 2000]. Only, in international relations, these lines of philosophising have two features. The first feature is that, unlike the comprehension of the categories of good and evil, in the theories of international relations, Democritus’ line led to results that are more significant. The major schools of thought of realism and neorealism (structural realism), which represented Democritus’ line, have always played a leading role in the theoretical comprehension of the internal and interstate relations. The second feature concerns the liberalism and neoliberalism schools of thought, which represented Plato’s line in the theories of international relations. Given the fact that the international (political) relations, for example, in the understanding of Raymond Aron, are the relationship between “political entities: between states, or between the “diplomat” and the “soldier”” [Aron, 2000], then the line of Plato was represented in them quite specifically. To understand this specificity, we consider, for example, an evaluation of Augustine’s writings in terms of philosophy and political science. As we discussed above in comprehending the categories of good and evil in philosophy, Augustine’s writings are evaluated as the most important contribution to the development of Plato’s line of philosophising. Plato ĺ Plotinus ĺ Augustine ĺ Aquinas ĺ Kant ĺ Heidegger and others, that is, in ontology, in the study of the fundamental principles of being, its most common being and categories, structures and regularities. Plato’s line of philosophising forms the basis of humanity’s perception of the world. For example, the same Augustine’s ideas have remained relevant for over 1,000 years! Plato’s line of philosophising is presented by fundamental research in philosophy, cosmology, biology and neurosciences. Its final

12

Chapter One

product is the theory of evolution that determines the origin and the main stages of the deployment of the material world, or in philosophical terminology – the doctrine of being. In the theory of evolution as a product of scientific knowledge, and in the doctrine of being as a product of philosophical reflection, the theory of war and peace is a special case, which is considered as a consequence of manifestations of more fundamental processes. Quite differently Augustine’s writings are evaluated in political science and, consequently, in international relations. Political scientists (sociologists, historians, and others) do not investigate entities and the manifestations of being. In the understanding of Alexander Lyubishchev, this is Democritus’ line. However, the separate ideas of Augustine were interpreted, for example, in his treatise “The City of God” (we consider them below), they open the manifestations of being, but not the study of being. These ideas in the theories of international relations lay down the basis for the theories of liberalism and neoliberalism. Similarly, in the writings of Plato, Plotinus, Aquinas and other reputable representatives of Plato’s line, one can find reasoning about the manifestations of being which, in philosophy, one would attribute to Democritus’ line. But, in political science, sociology, history and other disciplines, representing Democritus’ line, one could refer to Plato’s line. Indeed, in comparison with Realpolitik, these ideas are really fundamental and defining. The understanding of this feature is very important for our research. Once again, we can formulate the fact that many scientific disciplines attribute to ontology, to fundamental and determining (Plato’s line), actually, ontology as the doctrine of being is considered (and rightly so!) as the manifestation of being, and accordingly, attributed to Democritus’ line. It is here we answer the question: why philosophers attribute the problem of war and peace to Democritus’ line (though, it is merely the manifestation of being) and do not pay much attention to it (focusing their efforts on the study of being), and why political scientists (historians, sociologists and et al.) consider the theories of war and peace as basic theories. The latter corroborate “ontology” of their theories in terms of the ideas of the classic authors of Plato’s line, ignoring the fact that most of these ideas regarded the manifestations of being, rather than the study of being itself. Thus, considering the theoretical and empirical basis of war and peace in international relations, we see Democritus’ and Plato’s lines of philosophising (in the understanding of Alexander Lyubishchev), knowing that Plato’s

The Problem of War and Peace: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis

13

line in this field of research examines the development of the manifestations of being, rather than the study of being. § 5. Democritus’ line in the theory of international relations originates from the book “History of the Peloponnesian War” (written in the 5 century BC), in which the ancient Greek historian Thucydides, describing the events of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta (431–404 BC), anticipated the basic provisions of the modern school of “political realism.” Despite the fact that Democritus and Thucydides were the same age (both born about 460 BC2), and that Democritus is attributed to the founders of materialist philosophy, his name is not mentioned in the theories of international relations, and Democritus’ line (in the understanding of Lyubishchev) originated from Thucydides3. According to Thucydides, the use of force is the norm of the political behavior of the fittest. For example, in the first book of “History of the Peloponnesian War”, revealing the cause of the war between Athens and Lacedaemonians, Thucydides wrote: “The real cause (of the war), I consider to be the one which was formerly kept out of sight. The growth of the power of Athens, and the alarm which this inspired in Lacedaemon, made war inevitable” [Thucydides, 1910]). In the second book, Thucydides came to the following conclusion, which is important for our research: “for the retiring and unambitious are never secure without vigorous protectors at their side; in fine, such qualities are useless to an imperial city, though they may help a dependency to an unmolested servitude”4 [Thucydides, 1910]). The next important step in the understanding of war and peace in Democritus’ (Thucydides) line of philosophising is the work of the Roman politician and philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero (the years 106–43 BC). For example, Fiona Forsyth noted the practical and theoretical contribution of Cicero in the development of political and legal ideas of Rome in the 1st century BC, in particular, his supporting the republican system [Forsyth, 2003]. It is noteworthy that Cicero was strongly influenced by

2

Supposedly, Democritus lived 30 years longer than Thucydides (he died about 70-80 years old). 3 However, Plato believed that his philosophical antagonist was Democritus. 4 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Thuc.+2.63&fromdoc=Perseus%3 Atext%3A1999.01.0200

Chapter One

14

the representatives of the different line of philosophising: Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoic philosophers. In the last philosophical essay “On Duties”, written in October-November 44 BC, in the form of a letter to his son (Cicero dedicated it to his son Mark) Cicero wrote: “11. ... There are also certain duties to be observed toward those who may have injured you. For there is a limit to revenge and punishment ... In the public administration, also, the rights of war are to be held sacred. While there are two ways of contending, one by discussion, the other by force, the former belonging properly to man, the latter to beasts, recourse must be had to the latter if there be no opportunity for employing the former. Wars, then, are to be waged in order to render it possible to live in peace without injury...” [Cicero, 1887]. A new stage in the understanding of war and peace is connected with the works of Niccolò Machiavelli. In the treatise “Il Principe” (the Prince) (written around 1513, but it was published only in 1532, five years after Machiavelli’s death), Machiavelli carried out the analysis and generalisation of the real facts of the history of political relations, and systematised information about the state and its governance. Machiavelli’s “Il Principe” is the transition from Augustine’s view of human history as the relationship between the earthly city (Dei ciuitas) and the heavenly city (terrena ciuitas)5 to the analysis of the functioning of the earthly city – to politics as the empirical science and the analysis of the problems of war and peace with the help of the empirical methods. Niccolò Machiavelli caused a revolution of sorts in the worldview of the Middle Ages, actualizing maximally and bringing Augustine’s understanding of the earthly city closer to reality. For the first time, Machiavelli: 1. Considered the state as a political state of society and the main participant in international relations. 2. Examined the role of the ruler’s personality in the fate of the state. 3. Actualized the problem of the correlation between moral standards and political expediency in philosophy and history. 4. Revived and developed the ancient views on war and peace in line with Thucydides.

5

[Schaff, 1887].

The Problem of War and Peace: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis

15

5. Concluded that Christian morality is not the basis of policy and political relations, and the interests and power, thus freeing politics from theological dogmas. 6. Proved that war and peace are immanent states of bilateral relations. However, the most important thing, in our opinion, is that Machiavelli made a contribution to the understanding of the problem of war and peace through his idea of equilibrium (the balance of power). This idea (only in a modern interpretation) continues to dominate in international relations and the theories of war and peace. For example, at the end of chapter three of “Il Principe” (the Prince), Machiavelli wrote: “... and on Cardinal Rouen observing to me that the Italians did not understand war, I replied to him that the French did not understand statecraft, meaning that otherwise they would not have allowed the Church to reach such greatness. And in fact it has been seen that the greatness of the Church and of Spain in Italy has been caused by France, and her ruin may be attributed to them. From this a general rule is drawn which never, or rarely, fails: that he who is the cause of another becoming powerful is ruined; because that predominancy has been brought about either by astuteness or else by force, and both are distrusted by him who has been raised to power” [Machiavelli, 2006]. In the 18th century Machiavelli’s idea of the balance of power was formulated by David Hume, and in the 19th – 20th century, on the basis of this idea, Hans Morgenthau, and others created the theory that is now widely used in the practice of international relations and the theories of war and peace6. The next step in the understanding of the problem of war and peace in the theories of international relations in Democritus’ (Thucydides) line were the ideas formulated in the 17th century by English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Outstanding political analyst Richard E. Flathman, studying the impact of Hobbes’ work on the development of political philosophy, called him one of the founders of modern political philosophy and political science [Flathman, 2002]7. 6

The history of the concept of the “balance of power” was written, for example, in the article of the Norwegian political scientist Torbjørn L. Knutsen [Knutsen, 2007]. 7 The provocation of this book is that Richard E. Flathman is a theorist of liberalism and in his study, he monitors of the ideas of liberalism in the works of

16

Chapter One

In a range of works (one of the main is considered “Leviathan; or, the Matter, Form, and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil” (the book was published in 1651)), Thomas Hobbes created a full and systematic doctrine about the state based on beginnings of human nature and natural law. In his political doctrine, Hobbes proceeded from the ideas about the natural origin of man and societies. Hobbes believes that naturally man is not made for communication because selfishness is dominant over him – the basic human passion (it follows: “man is a wolf to man” – homo homini lupus). According to Hobbes, the natural state of man is “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes). However, the instinct of self-preservation (saecuritas) forced people to seek peace. On this basis, Hobbes formulated the basic laws of nature: obliged to seek Peace (est quaerendam esse pacem)! From these laws, it follows the laws of nature as prescribing the moral virtues that are necessary to achieve peace and to forbid the opposite vices. One of these laws prescribes that to save peace, one must abandon the right to all; otherwise, the war will continue. To refuse the right to all, it means to give in to others or to transfer their rights to others, that is, not to resist when they do something that by the laws of nature and I could have the same right [Chicherin 2001: 172]. Later, the idea of the social contract was developed in the works of Samuel Pufendorf (1673), John Locke (1689), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762), and Immanuel Kant (1797). Thus, in the 16th – 18th centuries, several generations of scientists laid down the basic markers of Democritus’ (Thucydides) line in the study the problems of war and peace in the theories of international relations. In the scientific literature, these ideas are called “classic” and preceded the ideas of “political realism”, which were formed after the Second World War. Their main difference is the understanding of international relations as the sphere of conflicts and actions of states that are guided by their interests and resorted to the use of force as a decisive factor of interstate communications [Novikov, 1996]. In the “classic” approach, two ideas are of interest to us:

members of the opposite line – the school of political realism. However, in recent decades, the trend towards convergence of the lines of Democritus’ (Thucydides) and Plato in the theories of international relations, became more pronounced. This fact was noted in the works, for example, of David A. Baldwin [Neorealism and Neoliberalism, 1993] Gennady Novikov [Novikov, 1996], and others.

The Problem of War and Peace: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis

17

1. The theory of state sovereignty, in particular, a consideration of states as independent loci of civilization. Niccolò Machiavelli, Jean Bodin, Thomas Hobbes, and others developed it. 2. The concept of equilibrium (the balance of power) (Henry St John Bolingbroke, Emer de Vattel, David Hume, and others). In the similarly named essay “On the Balance of Power”, David Hume formulated this concept as follows: “politics, at the highest level of generalization, is an action aimed at preventing any state from accumulating strength that is superior to coalition forces of the rivals [Hume, 1987]. In the basis of this concept, the search for a form of reconciliation between the state selfishness and the security of each country, as well as the stability and peaceful development of the whole system, was laid down. The next step in the understanding of the problem of war and peace in the theories of international relations was the work of the Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz “On War” [Clausewitz, 2007]. A treatise on the art of war, on which Clausewitz worked from 1816 until his death (1831), remained incomplete. In 1832, Clausewitz’s widow published her husband’s work. The recognized researchers of the theories of war and peace (e.g. Anton Kersnovsky [Kersnovsky, 2012]; Andrew Snesarev [Snesarev, 2003; Snesarev, 2007]; Martin van Creveld [Creveld, 2005]; Jack S. Levy [Levy, 2010]; Kenneth Waltz [Waltz, 2001], and others) are unanimous in affirming that the work of Carl von Clausewitz not only made a decisive contribution to military theory, but also significantly enriched the study of war as a phenomenon of international relations. Carl von Clausewitz treated the representatives of the ideas of Plato’s line of war and peace with irony, and regarded war as a realist and an officer, who planned and participated in many battles. According to von Clausewitz: “War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means” [Clausewitz, 2007: 25]. War is “an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will” [Clausewitz, 2007: 15], which “belongs necessarily also to the feelings” [Clausewitz, 2007: 16]. Carl von Clausewitz first drew attention to the psychological aspects of the war, including the peculiarities of the influence of national character and morale of the people on the political aims of the war. In the chapters of the book: “Defence of Mountains” (Chapter 15 and 16), “Defence of Swamps” (Chapter 20), and others, von Clausewitz suggested the options for

18

Chapter One

conducting military operations in different terrain conditions, which are used in military strategies and now. In the late-19th – early 20th century, Democritus’ (Thucydides) line was enriched due to the theories of geopolitics, in which, as a special case, the theories of war and peace were considered. The basis of the theories of geopolitics was the idea of the influence of geographical environment on the destinies of nations. At the root of the emergence and development of this idea were Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, Strabo, Cicero, Machiavelli, and others. In 1748, a book “The Spirit of Laws” of Charles-Louis de Montesquieu was published, in which he introduced the idea of geographical determinism, i.e., the defining influence of geography on the history and politics of states. In 1897, in the book “Political Geography” of the German geographer Friedrich Ratzel, the idea of geographical determinism of de Montesquieu reached a new level of understanding, which was based on the prevailing conditions of the new reality. It should be reminded that at the turn of the 19th – 20th centuries, for the first time in the history of civilization, the Earth’s territory was divided into the spheres of influence and colonies between several powerful states. However, the current division of spheres of influence did not suit Germany, which under the leadership of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck was rapidly gaining economic and military power. There was the violation of the balance of power, which led to massive border changes, and to the First World War. It was during this period in Germany that Friedrich Ratzel developed a doctrine of “living space”, based on the idea of geographical determinism of Charles-Louis de Montesquieu, which encouraged imperial expansion. Ratzel claimed that a state had no clear borders, and like any living organism, a state sought to expand its space for the acquisition of natural resources, or for the purpose of greater security. Ratzel asserted that the higher development of culture in the state was, the more natural and justifiable joining the territories rich in natural resources to it was. The idea of world domination by Friedrich Ratzel (or the possibility of highly developed countries expanding the borders of their influence at the expense of expansion of less developed states) was evolving in practical implementation and theoretical works of Halford John Mackinder, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Douglas MacArthur, Johan Rudolf Kjellén, and others. After the First World War, promoting the idea of expanding the “living space” of Germany, Karl Haushofer gave geopolitics the meaning of

The Problem of War and Peace: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis

19

“practical politics.” In his works, he argued that the directions and borders of the foreign policy of any state were drawn on the geographic map. In the early 20th century, Cecil John Rhodes, John Atkinson Hobson, Rudolf Hilferding, Nikolai Bukharin, Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin), and others created mainly the economic theory, under the provisions of which a state of peace (a balance between the imperialist coalitions) is only a “respite” between wars, the division and re-division of the world [Lenin, 1971]. Imperialism is a source of irresistible international conflicts, in which the small nations are absorbed by the more powerful nations [Lenin, 1971]. The Second World War and the emergence of nuclear weapons strengthened the understanding of international relations as the relations of power. In 1948 in the USA, the book “Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace” of Hans Morgenthau was published [Morgenthau, 1985]. In the book, Morgenthau pursued two aims: to understand international politics and the problem of international peace. In the basis of his reasoning, Morgenthau laid out the principle of the national interests developed by him that are understood in terms of authority and power. The main factor determining the development of international relations was the force or power, understood primarily in terms of its military expression. The struggle for military predominance (or authority, power) on the international scene corresponded to human nature and aimed at protecting national interests. According to Morgenthau, the basis of national interests and the categories of national power is formed by the eight elements: 1) geography, 2) natural resources, 3) industrial capacity, 4) military preparedness, 5) population, 6) national character, 7) national morale, 8) quality of government. Morgenthau insisted on a dynamic understanding of national interests, which, in his view, depended on the period of history, political and cultural context. The ideas developed by Morgenthau in the book, not only consolidated the success of the school of “political realism” but also, for decades, they sent into oblivion the research of the problem of war and peace by the representatives of Plato’s line. In addition to Hans Morgenthau, the foundations of political realism were developed by George Schwarzenberger, George F. Kennan, Robert Endicott Osgood, Robert Strausz-Hupé, Raymond Aron, and others.

20

Chapter One

Around the middle of the 1950s, understanding the problems of war and peace was enriched through so-called “modernist” theories that were based on the provisions of behaviorism, general systems theory, information theory, and cybernetics. Conventionally, the modern theories of international relations can be divided into two groups: 1. The theories, operating with non-mathematical concepts, in particular, based on the theory of structural-functional analysis of Talcott Parsons, and the method of system analysis of policy of David Easton. Among the representatives of this area, we should highlight: – Philip Quincy Wright, who in the two volumes “A Study of War”, published in 1942, systematized all the data on the wars that had taken place in the history of humanity by the method of structuralfunctional analysis [Wright, 1965]. – Morton Kaplan, who, in his 1957 book “System and Process in International Politics”, based on general systems theory and with the use of cybernetic concepts, tried to define more precisely the basic rules of optimal behavior of states “actors” in the system of the “balance-of-power” [Kaplan, 1957]. Kaplan described the six rules of normal, which are, from his point of view, how the system operates,, in which each of the five actors should follow the rules: (1) Act to increase capabilities, but negotiate rather than fight; (2) Fight rather than pass up an opportunity to increase capabilities; (3) Stop fighting rather than eliminate an essential national actor; (4) Act to oppose any coalition or a single actor which tends to assume a position of predominance with respect to the rest of the system; (5) Act to constrain actors who subscribe to supranational organizing principles; (6) Permit defeated or constrained essential national actors to re-enter the system as acceptable role partners or act to bring some previously inessential actors within the essential actor classification. Treat all essential actors as acceptable role partners [Kaplan, 1957]. – Harold and Margaret Sprout, who considered the features of manifestations of states’ foreign policy, depending on the environmental conditions. They introduced the concept “ecological triad” in the theory of international relations: (1) an actor, or entity, of some sort, (2) an environment that surrounds the entity, and (3) the entity-environment relationship [Starr, 2000].

The Problem of War and Peace: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis

21

2. The theories that use quantitative methods and mathematical theories such as the theory of games of John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern; information theory of Norbert Wiener and William Ross Ashby; factor, multivariate, correlation, regressive, variance analysis; time series analysis, etc. Among the representatives of this area, we should highlight: – Karl Wolfgang Deutsch, who developed the method of the cybernetic analysis of military strategies. – Lewis Fry Richardson, who developed a mathematical model of war and international conflict. – J. David Singer, who in 1963 at the University of Michigan (USA) launched the Correlates of War (COW) Project, which was based on the level-of-analysis problem in international relations, developed by Singer. The project provided for two objectives: (1) to establish a correlation between the various types of war and military potentials of the European states since the Congress of Vienna (1815–1965); (2) to establish a correlation between several parameters of wars (occurrence, intensity, duration), and the parameters that characterize the international system (the number and the force of unions, the number of international organizations). One of the project conclusions was drawn as follows: the long-term equilibrium relationships of the European system of the 19th century impeded the intensity of wars and, on the contrary, the wars of the 20th century caused by changes in the balance of forces in favor of one state or a coalition [Sarkees & Wayman, 2010]. – Kenneth Ewart Boulding, who was a founder of a general theory of conflict, the dominant methodology of which is systemic, structural-functional approaches combined with cyber-behaviorist methods [Boulding, 1962]. – George Modelski was one of the first who applied the behaviorist approach using cybernetic tools for the analysis of foreign policy decisions and the actions of the state. – Anatol Rapoport, who first described the conflict behaviors of the states by two types of games: two-person zero-sum and non-zerosum games, as well as complex motivations for several players – international actors. – Johan Vincent Galtung was the founder (1959) and the first Director of the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo, Norway, a participant of more than 45 of international, regional, and domestic conflict resolutions. Originality in Galtung’s

22

Chapter One

approach is that he examines the actions of the states through the prism of sociological analysis of their internal structure and the structure of their relationship on a scale of “equality of rights – dependence.” This approach allowed Galtung, yet in 1980, to predict the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR8. § 6. The representatives of Stoicism – a philosophical school, which was founded in Athens around 300 BC, interpreted, opposing Democritus’ (Thucydides) line, the understanding of the problem of war and peace in the theories of international relations. Developing the ideas of Plato, the Stoics were speculating on a “unified world state” formed and existing according to universal reason. The Stoics put the idea of human freedom at a new level of understanding at the scale of the Earth, which was first expressed by Socrates and Diogenes. The ideology of global or cosmopolitan citizenship developed by the Stoics meant an important stage in the development of Greek thought. From comprehension of the origin, development and relationship closed autonomous poleis, the ancient Greek philosophers moved to comprehension of the moral unity of the human race. A century later, the idea of cosmopolitanism of the Stoics became the basis of a Christian worldview concerning the global unity of people created in God's image and likeness. St. Augustine in his treatise “The City of God” (De Civitate Dei in Latin), written in 413–427, formulated the two important ideas for our research. First, Augustine introduced the history of humanity as the coexistence of the Heavenly City (lat. Dei ciuitas) and the Earthly City (lat. Terrena ciuitas). In book 11, chapter 1, he wrote: “I will endeavor to treat of the origin, and progress, and deserved destinies of the two cities (the earthly 8

The collapse of the USSR, Johan Vincent Galtung predicted, pointing to the five major contradictions: 1) Between the USSR and its allies, which wanted independence. 2) Between Russia and the other republics of the USSR, which wanted greater autonomy. 3) The relationship between urban and rural areas that were characteristic for the construction in the USSR. 4) The relations between the socialist bourgeoisie and socialist working-class. 5) Between the liquidity of money and the deficit on consumers’ goods (the population had money, but there were not enough goods).

The Problem of War and Peace: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis

23

and the heavenly, to wit), which, as we said, are in this present world commingled, and, as it were, entangled together” [Schaff, 1887]. Augustine’s idea remained relevant for more than a thousand years (up to the Renaissance) and was laid down as the basis of the confrontation between the political doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church and the secular power. Guided by Augustine’s idea, the fathers of the Roman Catholic Church with war and peace tried to impose a uniform European political system – the dominance of “the City of God.” In the 11th century, Pope Gregory VII almost succeeded to do it. However, as a result of the bloody and centuries-long conflict, the Earthly City defended its right to exist after all. In the 13th century, in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Renaissance of Aristotle’s political ideas and the recognition of the rights of states and political communities for the autonomous existence took place [Aquinas, 2008]. The reality of political life took precedence over the utopia of the Heavenly City. Augustine’s second idea is related to the understanding of the importance of a just kingdom9 that was implied in the concept of “just war.” In book 4, chapter 15, Augustine wrote: “...to carry on war and extend a kingdom over wholly subdued nations seems to bad men to be felicity, to good men necessity” [Schaff, 1887]. Alternatively, in book 19, chapter 7, Augustine formulated the same idea as follows: “...the wise man will wage just wars. As if he would not all the rather lament the necessity of just wars, if he remembers that he is a man; for if they were not just he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered from all wars” [Schaff, 1887]. Augustine’s ideas highlighted by us contributed to the further development of theoretical understanding of the problem of war and peace in international relations. We emphasise that both ideas Augustine deduced from the basic for Plato’s line of philosophising postulate about a single beginning (creation) of the universe. Following Plotinus, Augustine improved Plato’s idea of the unity of the world: “...the one God, the author of this universe, who is not only above every body, being incorporeal, but also above all souls, being incorruptible – our principle, our light, our good” [Schaff, 1887].

9

For example, in book 4, chapter 4, in the treatise “The City of God”, Augustine wrote: “Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies?” [Schaff, 1887].

24

Chapter One

Plato’s line in comprehension of the problem of war and peace in the theories of international relations was most clearly manifested at the beginning of the 16th century when it was directly opposed to Democritus’ (Thucydides) line, which was represented at the time in the works of Niccolò Machiavelli. Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus, and later in Francisco de Vitoria, Francisco Suárez, Hugo Grotius, Emeric Crucé, abbé de Saint-Pierre, John Locke and some other researchers laid the foundations of the ethical and legal (idealistic) paradigm, which is currently represented in the theories of international relations by the theories of liberalism and neoliberalism. In this paradigm, the idea of continuity of policy and morality, the idea of the possibility of improving reality, and the principle of duty are defended. Each of the scientists mentioned above pays close attention to the problem of war and peace. For example, Erasmus, in the book “The Complaint of Peace”, published in 1517, gives the following definition of peace and war: “Now, if I, whose name is Peace, am a personage glorified by the united praise of God and man, as the fountain, the parent, the nurse, the patroness, the guardian of every blessing which either heaven or earth can bestow; if without me nothing is flourishing, nothing safe, nothing pure or holy, nothing pleasant to mortals, or grateful to the Supreme Being; if, on the contrary, war is one vast ocean, rushing on mankind, of all the united plagues and pestilences in nature; if, at its deadly approach, every blossom of happiness is instantly blasted, everything that was improving gradually degenerates and dwindles away to nothing, everything that was firmly supported totters on its foundation, everything that was formed for long duration comes to a speedy end, and everything that was sweet by nature is turned into bitterness” [Erasmus, 1917]. In the same essay, Erasmus formulated his famous phrase: “There is scarcely any peace so unjust, but it is preferable, upon the whole, to the justest war. Sit down, before you draw the sword, weigh every article, omit none, and compute the expense of blood as well as treasure that war requires, and the evils which it, of necessity, brings with it; and then see at the bottom of the account whether, after the greatest success, there is likely to be a balance in your favour” [Erasmus, 1917]. In the treatise “The three books of the Law of War and Peace”, published in 1625, following the basic ideas of Desiderius Erasmus concerning the establishment of a peaceful world order, the elimination of forces from the international order and careful regulation of the legality of the war, Hugo

The Problem of War and Peace: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis

25

Grotius systematized international law and prescribed the legal basis of the war, which formed the basis of international law in the modern period. In 1713, abbé de Saint-Pierre proposed the project of “perpetual peace.” In 1795, a treatise, “Perpetual Peace”, by Immanuel Kant was published, which can be regarded as the main work among “small treatises” on the issues of philosophy of history and politics, published in the years 1784– 1798 [Kant, 1966]. The creators of the American democracy made a significant contribution to the comprehension of war and peace in international relations. For example, Thomas Jefferson in the United States Declaration of Independence, which was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4 1776, wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness” [The Declaration, 1776]. Charles-Louis de Montesquieu, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and others defended the idea that the law was able only to stop the violence, but not eradicate it; that the destinies of independence of states, and the Republican system, depended only on the moral development of people. The makers of the French Revolution of 1789, their ideas and the practical realization of those ideas narrowed the understanding of war and peace in the lines of Plato and Democritus (Thucydides). The ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Charles-Louis de Montesquieu from the field of philosophical discussions were embodied in daily life, for example, the changes which have taken place in the international legal status of the French people. A new revolutionary law that was adopted in that period in France rejected the sovereignty of the monarchs and recognised the sovereign people as a subject of international law, which exercised their will through representative institutions. The French of “subjects” of the state (sujet) became “citizens” (citoyen), which possessed equal rights to participate in the development of the nation and the state.

26

Chapter One

A new level of understanding of the problem of war and peace in international relations of Plato’s line gave the works of German philosophers: Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Georg Wilhelm Hegel and some others. For example, Georg Wilhelm Hegel criticised the idea of “perpetual peace” and put the idea of war at a new level of understanding. In the third part, “Philosophy of Right”, published in 1820, Hegel wrote: “War has the higher significance that, by its agency... the ethical health of peoples is preserved in their indifference to the stabilisation of finite institutions; just as the blowing of the winds preserves the sea from the foulness which would be the result of a prolonged calm, so also corruption in nations would be the product of prolonged, let alone 'perpetual', peace” [Hegel, 1990: 361]. Hegel has enriched the idea of war and peace by a new approach that Gennady Novikov formulated as follows: “The world is immortal in the dialectics of life and death epochs, societies, civilizations; some of them die, producing others, making the further ascent to the knowledge of absolute spirit. The destiny of each nation is unique. In some periods, this or that nation is called upon to perform its mission, using violence, resorting to imperialism in relation to other peoples. Thus, the world’s progress is carried out” [Novikov, 1996]. An important step in the understanding of war and peace were the fourteen paragraphs of the draft of the peace treaty that were the final stage of The First World War, made by US President Woodrow Wilson in a letter to Congress, on January 8 1918. Wilson’s 14 paragraphs were against the provisions of Lenin’s famous “Decree on Peace”, which was adopted unanimously on October 26 (November 8) 1917, at the Second Congress of Soviets of Workers’, Peasants’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. Moreover, this opposition was carried out within the framework of the ideas of liberalism (Plato’s line) and realism (Democritus’ line). According to Gennady Novikov’s “From Woodrow Wilson’s mouth, the US government promoted the ideas of Western liberalism in international relations, as opposed to the Lenin’s doctrine of a “world socialist revolution” [Novikov, 1996]. Despite the fact that Wilson’s program was the basis of the Treaty of Versailles and, on its basis, the League of Nations was established,

The Problem of War and Peace: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis

27

Woodrow Wilson’s views on war and peace in international relations were considered, and continue to be considered, as idealistic and moralistic10. The understanding of the problem of war and peace in Plato’s line greatly enriched the ideas expressed by the outstanding philosopher Henri Bergson in the last book “The Two Sources of Morality and Religion”, published in 1932. In the final chapter of the book “Mechanics and mysticism”, Bergson tried to convey the biological understanding of the war by human nature and human society. According to Bergson, natural society is the opposite of democracy. It is a monarchical or oligarchic regime [Bergson, 1977]. To Plato’s line, in the understanding of war and peace in international relations, one could include the fundamental research of Pierre Renouvin on this problem. Renouvin was a participant of the First World War. In April 1917, he lost his left arm, because of being wounded. Perhaps this is why in the research of Renouvin, one could observe not only realism but also the search for deeper meanings inherent in Plato’s line of philosophising. In the book “Immediate Origins of the War”, as well as in other studies, Renouvin researched the origins of war and came to comprehension that the development of international relations was caused by so-called “deep forces”, to which he attributed: geographical conditions, demographic processes, economic and financial interests, the features of mass psychology, significant emotional flows. Renouvin focused on studying the role of the individual (the head of state, a political leader) in the history of war and peace and believed that emotions, the features of a mentality and the value orientations of a political leader were the important factors in the assessment of foreign manifestations of the nation and the state. Together with other prominent French historian and political scientist Jean-Baptiste Duroselle, they developed a typology of characters of political leaders, highlighting the most important, from their point of view, quality of an individual. The new ideas in the understanding of the problem of war and peace were added by military strategy, which was called the “New Look”, developed and embodied in the 1950s by US President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In the struggle against the Soviet Union and its allies, except reliance on nuclear weapons, Dwight D. Eisenhower hoped for the lasting effect of gradually 10

For example, his biographer, historian John Milton Cooper Jr [Cooper, 2009].

28

Chapter One

spreading democratic values and institutions; the attraction of a viable economy; advanced technology; the ability to conduct psychological warfare; the economic and military aid to developing countries [Mandrahelya, 2003]. § 7. In recent decades, the understanding of the problem of war and peace in the lines of Plato and Democritus (Thucydides) in international relations became closer. As we have said before, their division was initially conditional and artificial, because the subject of the study of war and peace in international relations is only the field of philosophising of Democritus’ line. In the book “Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary. Debate”, which was published in 1993, edited by David Baldwin, six key points were highlighted that made the theories of neorealism and neoliberalism in international relations closer (and, accordingly, their views on war and peace) [Neorealism and Neoliberalism, 1993]: 1. The neoliberals recognise that the structure of the international system is characterized by a certain “anarchy”, but in contrast to the neorealists, the neoliberals believe that the certain patterns of interactions between the states were developed. The neorealists insist on the fundamental importance of the international system. (For example, the studies of American political scientists Robert Axelrod, Robert Owen Keohane, and others). 2. The neorealists agree with the neoliberals that international cooperation is possible, but in contrast to the latter, they assert that cooperation is difficult to implement and more dependent on the mentality of political leaders. 3. The neorealists insist that cooperation brings only a relative advantage, while the neoliberals insist on its absolute benefit for all participants. 4. Supporters of neorealism and neoliberalism recognise national power and economic wellbeing as the most important characteristics for each state, but at the same time, the neorealists emphasise the importance of national power, and the neoliberals emphasise economic power. 5. The neorealists in their theories rely on the real resources of the state, and the neoliberals believe that the political intentions of the leaders and the people are more important, as well as the hypothetical potential of the nation and the states.

The Problem of War and Peace: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis

29

6. The neorealists recognise the influence and impact of international organizations on international relations, but believe that the neoliberals overstate their importance. Convergence of the theories of neorealism and neoliberalism in international relations is largely reflected in the understanding of the problems of war and peace. Summing up the development of empirical and theoretical foundations of war and peace in the theories of international relations, we emphasize the conventionality and superficiality of our analysis. We have only focused on the key, in our view, stages of the development. In the semantic space of philosophy, political science and sociology, apart from the authors mentioned above, the problem of war and peace was investigated by Francis Bacon, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Pitirim Sorokin, Vladimir Solovyov, Norman Angell, Michel Foucault, Karl Popper, Henry Kissinger, Alvin Toffler, Thomas Schelling, Samuel Huntington, Morris Janowitz, Charles F. Doran, John A. Vasquez, Manuel de Landa, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, James D. Morrow, Philip Quincy Wright, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Mary Kaldor, and many others.

1.3 War and Peace in the history and literature § 8. The third area, which forms the empirical and theoretical basis of war and peace, is historical and literary sources. The history of wars and the peaceful development of the states as well as fiction and documentary literature, memoir, reference, and technical literature on the subject of “war” and “peace”, written by professional historians and writers, or the direct participants of the events, formed together a rich layer of factual material about war and peace. All this versatile and detailed information significantly enriches Democritus’ (Thucydides) line in the research of the problem of war and peace and makes it urgent and topical. The first sources of wars and the peaceful development of the states, which have come down to our time, belong to ancient Greece. “History of the Peloponnesian War” by Thucydides [Thucydides, 1910], the writings of Zeno from Kition, Marcus Tullius Cicero et al. marked the beginning of documenting of the most important events related to the research of the problem of war and peace. However, the work “On War” by the Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz gave independence and self-sufficiency of historical events and literary records concerning war and peace.

30

Chapter One

From our point of view, the merit of Carl von Clausewitz is that in the book “On War,” he first: – Used the experience of the strategy officer (he not only planned but also participated in the battles) to enrich empirical and theoretical knowledge about the war (i.e. the rationalism in philosophising of Democritus’ (Thucydides) line). – Built a rational line of philosophising on Georg Hegel’s dialectical approach, i.e. used the philosophical construction of Plato’s line for the analysis of war and military art (for example, the exaltation of the “spirit of the people” and generalship-genius in the victories of war). – In the argumentation of his ideas about the war, he relied on the history of war, while at the same time acting as a historian and recording the course of the battles in which he took a direct part. It was such synthesis of the professional knowledge, life experience, and prevailing philosophical ideas of that epoch that laid the foundation for the third area of the theoretical and empirical understanding of war and peace – historical and literary. Later on, up to the present day, this area enriches the problem of war and peace by actual, theoretical, and existential generalizations. From our point of view, most of the authors that are conducting the research in this area are relying on their life experience; bringing existential depth in Democritus’ line of philosophising. Rethinking Kant’s slogan: from theoretical philosophy to practical realm [Kant 1966] (or from the movement of philosophical thought “from reasoning for the sake of reasoning – to practice” [Svendsen, 2008: 258]), historians and writers moved from comprehension of reality, in which their worldviews were formed and tempered to cognition of being that is fundamental and defining. Many works of this area not only and not so much document the events of war and peace, but they also make us think more of being, the causes of war and peace. For example, reading the naked and frightening truth of the military prose of Erich Maria Remarque, Svetlana Alexievich and many others, one feels not only an aversion to war (as the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2015 Svetlana Alexievich said: “I wanted to write such a book that even the generals would feel sick of war” [Alexievich, 2008]) but also the desire to understand the causes to prevent death and destruction at the scale of the Earth.

The Problem of War and Peace: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis

31

Among the most prominent representatives of this area, in the research of which the problem of war and peace is revealed in a variety of palettes, we highlight: Raimondo Montecuccoli, Alexander Suvorov, Carl von Clausewitz, Antoine-Henri Jomini, Ivan Bliokh, Helmuth von Moltke, Alfred T. Mahan, Hans Gottlieb Delbrück, Alfred von Schlieffen, Mikhail Tukhachevsky, André Beaufre, Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Andrew Snesarev, Erich Maria Remarque, Ernest Miller Hemingway, Richard Aldington, Boris Urlanis, Jesse Glenn Gray, Svetlana Alexievich and many others.

Conclusion of chapter one § 9. We have examined three main, from our point of view, areas of the research, the results of which form the theoretical and empirical basis of the theories of war and peace. In these areas, we have highlighted two main lines of the research problem: the lines of Democritus and Plato, in the understanding of Alexander Lyubishchev [Lyubishchev, 2000]. The difference between the lines of Democritus and Plato, one may compare to the difference between a photograph and a portrait of the artist: “The photo shows everything that can be seen with the naked eye. The portrait does not show everything that can be seen with the naked eye, but shows what the eyes cannot see in general: human nature of a personality, which served as a model” [Aron, 2000: 31]11. From the analysis of the problems of war and peace in the theories of good and evil, international relations as well as history and literature, we can draw the following conclusions: 1. In Plato’s line, the priority areas of scientific research are the development of determining evolutionary theories (fundamentals of the scientific picture of the world), and the priority of the philosophical comprehension of the world is the study of the fundamental principles of being (the doctrine of being). War and Peace are external manifestations of the fundamental processes, not being itself. That is why war and peace are not of great interest to researchers, in developing the doctrine of being. The only thing that we can take from this area for our further research is 11 Raymond Aron applied this comparison for understanding the difference between the empirical and historical comprehension of International Relations [Aron, 2000: 31].

32

Chapter One

Plato’s idea of the unity of the nature of good and evil, which Augustine turned into an ideological system, and the manifestations of which can be found at present: “…that everything in the world that was created by God, in one way or another was involved in absolute good, in the depth of which as the need was born evil” [Augustine, 2007]. The other ideas of “eternal peace”, “just war” etc., which were originated in this area of philosophising, are far from modern realities. 2. In Democritus’ line, which was mainly represented in the theories of international relations, history and literature, the problem of war and peace comes to the fore. The following ideas are the most relevant to the understanding of war and peace: – “War is a necessity of the world.” Marcus Tullius Cicero first formulated it in the year 44 BC as follows: “Wars, then, are to be waged in order to render it possible to live in peace without injury” [Cicero, 1887]. Georg Wilhelm Hegel in the book “Philosophy of Right”, published in 1881, put this idea at a new level of understanding: “War has the higher significance that by its agency... 'the ethical health of peoples is preserved in their indifference to the stabilisation of finite institutions; just as the blowing of the winds preserves the sea from the foulness which would be the result of a prolonged calm, so also corruption in nations would be the product of prolonged, let alone 'perpetual', peace” [Hegel, 1990: 361]; – “The role of the ruler’s personality in the destiny of the state.” This idea was reasoned and expressed by Niccolò Machiavelli at the beginning of the 16th century. In the 20th century, in the research of Pierre Renouvin and Jean-Baptiste Duroselle it was developed as the theory12. – “Equilibrium (the balance of power).” It was first formulated by Niccolò Machiavelli in his treatise “The Prince”, published in 1532: “...From this a general rule is drawn which never or rarely

12 In 2016, the book “Corruption in Ukraine: Rulers’ Mentality and the Destiny of the Nation, the Geophilosophy of Ukraine” was published, in which the author analyzed the psychological portraits of the five presidents of Ukraine, 1990–2016, and showed a direct link between their mentality and corruption in Ukraine [Bazaluk, 2016]. The book is based on the idea of “the influence of the ruler’s personality on the destiny of the state”, and proves its truth.

The Problem of War and Peace: A Historical and Philosophical Analysis

–

–

–

–

–

–

33

fails: that he who is the cause of another becoming powerful is ruined” [Machiavelli, 2006]. “Man is a wolf to man” (homo homini lupus in Latin), or the idea of “natural state of man is “war of all against all” (bellum omnium contra omnes in Latin). In the middle of the 17th century, both ideas were offered and justified by Thomas Hobbes. “The basic law of nature: obliged to seek Peace” (est quaerendam esse pacem in Latin), with all the ensuing consequences. Thomas Hobbes formulated this idea in the middle of 17th century. “The influence of the geographical environment on the destinies of the states” (or the idea of “geographical determinism”). Although this idea was considered in ancient Greece by Herodotus, Plato, and others, it was reasoned by Charles-Louis de Montesquieu in his book “The Spirit of Laws”, published in 1748. “Psychological roots of war.” Carl von Clausewitz in the book “On War”, published in 1832 first drew attention to the psychological aspects of war, including the features of influencing of national character and morale of the people to the political aims of war. “In some periods, this or that nation is called upon to perform its mission” in the history of civilization, resorting even to violence. Georg Wilhelm Hegel expressed this idea in the book “Philosophy of Right”, published in 1820. “National interests as the basis of the foreign policy of any state, understood in terms of authority and power.” The idea was first expressed and developed by Hans Morgenthau in his book “Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace”, published in 1948. Raymond Aron later proposed a similar idea of “power politics” [Aron, 2000].

Our analysis, in any case, does not purport to cover all the problems of war and peace. We have highlighted just the areas and identified the ideas, on the basis of which we will build our theory of war and peace. The relatively full bibliography of works on theories of war and peace is presented in the review of Jack Levy [Levy, 2015]. These theories are collected in the reviews and collective monographs: “Theories of War and Peace”, edited by Michael E. Brown [Theories, 1998]; John A. Vasquez [Vasquez, 2009]; Jack S. Levy and William R. Thompson [Levy & Thompson, 2010], et al.

CHAPTER TWO METHODOLOGY AND AXIOMATICS OF THE THEORY OF WAR AND PEACE

§ 10. A historical and philosophical analysis of the problem of war and peace has allowed the author to formulate the purpose of writing this book. For several decades, working on the creation of the theory of evolution (the theoretical model of “evolving matter” [Bazaluk, 2016]) as well as philosophical comprehension of its assertions (the study of being “The Cosmic Philosophy” [Bazaluk, 2016a]), the author used to think in categories of Plato’s line in understanding of Alexander Lyubishchev. The author perceives the dominance of Democritus’ (Thucydides) line in the comprehension of the problems of war and peace, the author perceives only as a lack of ontology development of this problem. Therefore, the purpose of writing the book is the creation of the scientific theory of war and peace, and its philosophical comprehension; the research of the ontology of war and peace.

2.1 Research Methodology § 11. To create the theory of war and peace, the author used the potential of geophilosophy. To understand the feasibility of this approach, let us clarify the concept of geophilosophy, the subject and object of its research. For the first time, the concept of “geophilosophy” is found in the work “What is Philosophy?” of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, published in France in 1991 [Deleuze & Guattari, 1994]. According to their view, geophilosophy is: “Thinking takes place in the relationship of territory and the earth” [Deleuze & Guattari, 1994: 85]. Further, the understanding of geophilosophy was significantly deepened and expanded by Nicola Masciandaro [Masciandaro, 2010]; Ben Woodard [Woodard, 2013]; Taylor Webb [Webb & Gulson, 2015]; Kalervo N. Gulson [Webb & Gulson, 2015] and others.

36

Chapter Two

However, if you consider geophilosophy not as the concept introduced in the scientific circulation only in the late 20th century, but as philosophy of geography, then the complexity and importance of the problems considered by geophilosophy will be comparable with ontology. The first studies on the philosophy of geography were held in Ancient Greece and, in fact, the geophilosophy of Deleuze and Guattari is only the visible part of the study, the roots of which were to be found in apophatic comprehension of the world1. It is thanks to philosophy of geography; geophilosophy can refer to the fundamental scientific theories about the origin of the Earth at the scales of space and simultaneously uses the basic categories of being, taken in philosophy. Due to philosophy of geography, geophilosophy receives a set of methods necessary for our study, which allows us to investigate both the fundamental basis of being (involving, for example, the science factors and causes of evolution, or the basic philosophical categories) and the features of their manifestations in the external environment. By and large, geophilosophy uses the methodology that allows it to work in the “lines” of Plato and Democritus. The ability to use fundamental knowledge (Plato’s line) and knowledge about the manifestations of being (Democritus’ line) allows geophilosophy to use many ideas, which have already been considered by us, in creating of theoretical constructions. For example, the idea of world unity (one single nature of good and evil); the idea of geographical determinism of Charles-Louis de Montesquieu; “Living space” of Friedrich Ratzel as well as many others that are connected with the Origin of the Earth at the scales of the Cosmos as well as the origins and manifestations of man at the scales of the Earth and the Universe. It is in this ontological sense; we discover geophilosophy for ourselves and use its capabilities for building and comprehension of the theory of war and peace.

1

Large-scale analysis of philosophy of geography was carried out by Ukrainian philosopher Julian Tyutyunnik [Tyutyunnik, 2011]. Based on the works of Aleksei Losev, Martin Heidegger, Gilles Deleuze and others, Tyutyunnik opens opportunities of geophilosophy when researching the causes of the changes that occur in Earth’s space, as well as when researching landscapes’ meanings, a part of which is a man [Tyutyunnik, 2011].

Methodology and Axiomatics of the Theory of War and Peace

37

§ 12. In the classic sense, geophilosophy considers the Earth and the civilizations that form it: 1. As the “surface”, which consists of a plurality of differentiated parts (loci) with different structures, functions and changing boundaries. Loci interact with each other continuously, for example forming different kinds of unions, associations, blocks, federations and other artificial structures, or simply collapsing borders, or completely disappear from Earth’s space. 2. At the same time, the Earth’s surface that is differentiated by loci of civilizations is not to be understood literally – as a flat plane, according to the view of Karl Ritter, geography is “a science about spaces and their material filling.” 3. As the meanings (a rhizome), which are the cause of a complex gamma of the manifestations in Earth's space. In geophilosophy, the concept of “civilization” is used in two meanings: a) holistic (single) Earth’s space – the Earth’s civilization; and b) relatively stable sociocultural centers – loci of civilizations. The Earth’s civilization, as the space of the eponymous planet in the Solar System, formed by the nth number of loci of civilizations, which are with each other in complex relationships: they change their boundaries, disappear, appear, conflict, complement each other, etc. Yulian Tyutyunnik defines the subject of geography – as one locus, and geography as a science about endless localisation [Tyutyunnik, 2011: 55]. In our research, we use philosophy of geography exclusively applied to human civilization, and therefore the research subject of geophilosophy in our understanding is narrowing significantly. It resolves itself into the research of the existing loci of civilizations in Earth’s space, which have their depth (rhizome) and their history of the development at the scales of the Earth’s civilization. Thus, in our research, the subject is a locus of civilization (the center of culture). The object is the Earth’s civilization that is apt to endless localisation. Moreover, in view of our ontological approach and the methodology, we consider the subject and object of our research as space connected with the fundamental scientific and philosophical theories of the past, present and future of man at the scales of the Earth and the Cosmos.

38

Chapter Two

2.2 Axiomatics of the Theory of War and Peace § 13. The author believes that the research subject and object of geophilosophy are the starting point for the creation of the theory of war and peace. The history of the creation of loci of civilization, the direction of their development, endless border changes of loci, etc. – all this, on the one hand, is the subject field of geophilosophy research, on the other hand, is the scientific and philosophical basis for the creation of the theory of war and peace. What do a separate locus of civilization and endless localisation processes mean in modern scientific literature? In most cases, one understands a locus of civilization as a certain political or social community, for example, nationality, nation, state. In this field, the classic works are of Benedict Anderson, Eric Hobsbawm, Anthony D. Smith, Miroslav Hroch and many others. Endless localisation is usually considered: – As the successive types (waves) of civilizations (for example, the works of Nikolai Danilevsky, Oswald Spengler, Arnold Toynbee, Daniel Bell, Alvin Toffler, etc.). – As confrontations between nations, civilizations (for example, the works of Samuel Huntington, Fernand Braudel, etc.). However, from our point of view, all these political and social organizations (unions, associations, combinations, etc.), as well as various options of their interactions, are only the visible part of the social structures created by the human mind. Undoubtedly, they partially reveal the features of a locus of civilization and endless localisation process, but in fact, they are only the external manifestations of the content, but not the content itself (sense, rhizome) of a separate locus of civilization. The author considers that the most modern research concerning the subject and object of geophilosophy can be attributed to external observable manifestations of human activity. We investigate the richness and diversity of manifestations of the content in the development and interaction of loci of civilization. The author has used all empirical and theoretical material that was accumulated by many generations of scholars to create and check the theory of war and peace. However, studying the variety of virtual and physical secondary forms, the researchers moved away from the study of

Methodology and Axiomatics of the Theory of War and Peace

39

the content i.e. a rhizome of a locus and the basics of endless localisation. According to the author, it is in this subject field that axiomatics of the theory of war and peace was laid down. § 14. The first axiom, from which the author deduces the theory of war and peace, follows from the question “What is a separate locus of civilization?”, which the author reduces to the question “What is man himself?” When a researcher considers a locus of civilization as the state and its system, or a nation and the history of its formation, he does not make mistakes. It is tantamount to study a man as a subject of sociohistorical activity and culture, which has the ability to think, the ability to make free choices, etc. In these assertions, there is no error. However, these arguments are not being considered erroneous, because they reveal only the external manifestations of the content that is the basis of a locus of civilization and man. Behind the diversity of the external manifestations, a rhizome is hidden that determines the features of the formation, the development and the interaction of a locus of civilization, and just as it generates the formation, development, and interaction of an individual. Thus, the first axiom of the theory of war and peace says that a separate locus of civilization and man have a common rhizome. The questions: “What is a separate locus of civilization?” and “What is man himself?” have the only answer under a certain abstraction. What is the answer? § 15. Saying that a rhizome of a separate locus of civilization and man are unknown, it is tantamount to tell a lie. In the early 20th century, Pitirim Sorokin formulated as follows: “...society as the research object of sociology is given only there, where there are a few individuals that are endowed with a mentality and interrelated by the processes of mental interaction. Conversely, everywhere the interaction of various centers was devoid of mental health, such as the interaction of atoms, molecules, planets, rocks, trees, simple organisms that were devoid consciousness, there will be no society in the sociological sense” [Sorokin, 1992: 28–29]. This is the idea that a mentality is a rhizome of a separate locus of civilization and man has been studied by many reputable researchers. The beginning of the 20th century can be called a period of getting used to this idea in science and philosophy. John Bernal, Ivan Ilyin, Edmund Husserl, Vladimir Vernadsky, Alexander Oparin, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and

40

Chapter Two

other authors developed their doctrine, starting from a rhizome. However, the research methods of a mentality were too imperfect. The results did not meet the requirements that applied to scientific theories. The appeal to a rhizome increased the risk to tarnish the scientific reputation by conjectures, guesses, and controversial arguments. Perhaps this is why most researchers, expecting more compelling scientific breakthroughs concerning rhizome research, focused on the study of the diversity of its manifestations. After nearly a hundred years, nothing much has changed in the scientific world. At the beginning of the 21st century, despite the fact that a lot more became known about a rhizome of a separate locus of civilization and man, but the scientific theory revealing the structure and functions of a mentality does not exist yet. There are philosophical generalizations and the scientific and philosophical models. By personal research in neurophilosophy and the field of evolutionary theory as well as the author’s model of evolution “Evolving matter”, the author tries to develop the ideas of Sorokin, Ilyin, Vernadsky, Teilhard de Chardin, and other scientists. The author tries to subsume under the already existing results of numerous research of the manifestations of a rhizome the scientific and philosophical theory of evolution of a rhizome itself. Thus, the first axiom of the theory of war and peace in the full wording reads as follows: a separate locus of civilization and man have a common rhizome – an evolving mentality. § 16. The following axiom, which the author used to create the theory of war and peace, is taken from the author’s model of evolution – “Evolving matter”2. It concerns the concept of “evolution”: 1. Evolution is complication of the structure of matter and types of interaction and environments, though in the unity and struggle of opposites. Speaking about evolution as complication of the universe, the author means complication of three components of physical reality: 1) the structure of matter; 2) types of interaction (relations) between the 2

Its main points are presented in the monographs: “The Universe: Living and Intelligent Matter (The Historical-Philosophical and Natural-Science Analysis on Basis of the New Cosmological Concept)” and “The Theory of Evolution: From a Space Vacuum to Neural Ensembles and Moving Forward” [Bazaluk, 2005; Bazaluk, 2016].

Methodology and Axiomatics of the Theory of War and Peace

41

structures of matter; 3) environments, in which complication of these structures and interactions are carried out, and which, to a varying degree, determine environmental characteristics [Bazaluk, 2016: 35]. 2. In the basis of complication of any state of matter (the universe, biosphere or noosphere), there are three factors and two causes of evolution. The author attributes the factors of evolution as complication to [Bazaluk, 2016: 136]: a) Continuity of self-complication of the structure, types of interaction and environments of any state of matter, supplemented by blocks of continuous self-complication and the principle of dominance of continuous block self-complication. b) Nonlinear complication of the structure, types of interaction and environments of any state of matter, which is specified by the factors: hierarchical nonlinear complication and direction of nonlinear hierarchical complication. c) Isolation of complication. The author attributes the causes of evolution as complication to [Bazaluk, 2016: 136]: – Active principle, which is inherently the basis for the initial elements of any state of matter and forms self-complication. – Natural selection as the impact of the external environment. Interaction of the active internal principle of any state of matter with natural selection as the impact of the external environment forms a regulatory compromise [Bazaluk, 2016: 136]. Thus, the basis of the theory of war and peace that is considered in the book through the methodology of geophilosophy, two axioms were laid down: – The first axiom: a separate locus of civilization and man have a common rhizome – an evolving mentality. – The second axiom: evolution is a continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments that are carried out under the impact of three factors and two causes of evolution, universal for any material organization at the scales of the universe.

42

Chapter Two

§ 17. Thus, using modern achievements of the theory of evolution, in particular, noogenesis3, for the first time, we have the opportunity: a) To consider the subject and object of our research from a rhizome as the evolution of a mentality at the scales of the Earth and the Universe. b) To create the theory of war and peace not on the base of the external manifestations of a rhizome, and on the base of a rhizome itself as continuous and nonlinear complication of a mental space: the totality of mentalities at the scales of a separate geographical or virtual territory4. Let us give a more precise clarification: 1. As for the scales of geophilosophy, it does not matter how complication of a single mentality is going. The scale of the research of geophilosophy is the evolution of a mental space at the scales of the Earth and the Universe. That is why in future, we will investigate only the features of the formation, development and interaction of a mental space and mental spaces. The features of the formation, development and interaction of individual mentalities, the causes of the integration of mentalities into mental spaces, and the features of behavior of mentalities in a mental space, it is a different problem field that geophilosophy has not investigated yet. 2. Geophilosophy does not study the internal neurobiological causes of complication of mental spaces. It is a prerogative of neurosciences and neurophilosophy. Using the methods of neurophilosophy, cognitive and social philosophy, we not only significantly expand the educational opportunities of 3

Noogenesis in the modern sense consolidates all the factual material of neuroevolution, social and cultural evolution and the evolution of technology [Bazaluk, 2016: 22]. 4 The author considers the concept of a “mental space” in the book “Philosophy of Education on Basis of the New Cosmological Concept” [Bazaluk, 2010]. It is not identical to the concept of a “mental space”, which is presented in the theoretical model of Gilles Fauconnier and Armen Khederlarian. It is much broader and includes a huge number of different mentalities and their manifestations. The concepts of a “mentality” and a “mental space” correlate just as well as the concepts of a “man” and a “society.”

Methodology and Axiomatics of the Theory of War and Peace

43

geophilosophy, but we also get the tools of scientific knowledge on the features of the formation, development and interaction of a separate locus of civilization and endless localisation processes. We have the possibility to model a separate locus of civilization and its interactions with other loci, i.e. an integrated view of continuous and nonlinear complication prone to the isolation of mental spaces and their manifestations. It is in this problem field, the theory of war and peace is formed and operates, which synthesises knowledge about continuous and nonlinear complication of loci of civilizations and predicts their interactions at the scales of the Earth’s civilization.

Conclusion of chapter two § 18. In chapter two, we have formulated the purpose of writing the book, the subject and object of the research, and decided on the methodology and axiomatics of the theory. The purpose of writing the book is the creation of the scientific theory of war and peace, and its philosophical comprehension according to Plato’s line. The author believes that the historical and philosophical analysis of the research on the problem of war and peace held by him in chapter one reveals the absence of a proper ontological development of this problem. For this reason, the vast majority of modern theories of war and peace investigate primarily manifestations of the fundamental principles of being, but not the fundamental principles themselves that are the ontology (or rhizome) of the problem of war and peace. To investigate the ontology of war and peace, the author has chosen the methodology of geophilosophy. The author believes that the methodology of geophilosophy is able to refer to the fundamental scientific theories about the origin of the Earth in the universe, and life on it, and simultaneously uses the basic categories of being, taken in ontology. Based on the methodology of geophilosophy, the author was able to identify the subject and object of the research of the ontology of war and peace. The subject is a locus of civilization (the center of culture), and the object is the Earth’s civilization that is apt to endless localisation. Moreover, the subject and object of the research are considered as a mental space connected with the fundamental scientific and philosophical theories about the past, present, and future of man at the scales of the Earth and the Cosmos.

44

Chapter Two

The methodology of geophilosophy allowed the author to formulate two axioms, which he further used for the creation of the theory of war and peace: 1. A separate locus of civilization and man have a common rhizome – an evolving mentality. 2. Evolution is a continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments that are subordinate to three factors and two causes of evolution, universal for any material organization at the scales of the universe. Thus, using the methodology of geophilosophy, the author has the opportunity: a) To consider the subject and object of the research from a rhizome as continuous and nonlinear complication of the Earth’s mental space. b) To create the theory of war and peace not on the base of the external manifestations of a rhizome, but on the doctrine about a rhizome itself.

CHAPTER THREE THE FEATURES OF MANIFESTATIONS OF A MENTAL SPACE IN THE LOCUS

§ 19. To develop the theory of war and peace, we have to solve the following objectives: 1. Explain how complication of a mental space influences the formation, development and interaction of a separate locus of civilization. 2. Reveal the cause of the endless localisation process of Earth’s space or otherwise, create the theory of war and peace, which would explain why some complicating mental spaces remain in their loci, while others seek to extend their influence on the nearby and remote loci of civilizations. To solve these objectives, we use the methodological apparatus of geophilosophy. § 20. We can give the first definition in our research: a locus of civilization is a continuously and nonlinearly complicating mental space with the totality of products of its activity that is apt to isolation in a separate geographical or imaginary (virtual) territory. A mental space is a rhizome of a locus of civilization. The manifestations of a mental space are carried out in different forms: a) Material (the subject of labour, ways of life, leisure, culture, etc.). b) Virtual-material (this method of transmission appeared after the formation of the logosphere (semiosphere). Starting from Quipus and finishing with modern multi-billion book editions, IT technologies, the internet, and others).

46

Chapter Three

c) Virtual (i.e. objects, subjects, categories, relationships, actions, etc. imitated (emulated1) with the help of other forms for different purposes). The totality of the manifestations of a mental space in its locus creates the specific sociocultural and technological environment, or otherwise, a locus of civilization. The variety of manifestations of a mental space in the locus is researched by modern science, philosophy, and religion. We “factor out” all this large-scale formation of the research. In our research, we only confine to the study of a rhizome of a locus of civilization – a mental space, the manifestations of which form the sociocultural and technological environment, studied by science, philosophy, and religion. If Deleuze studied a rhizome at the level of intuitive insight [Deleuze, 1990], then, at the beginning of the 21st century, owing to the achievements in neurosciences (neurobiology, neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, and others) and the generalized methodology of neurophilosophy, we can study a rhizome by scientific and philosophical methods. § 21. According to the second axiom discussed in § 16, a complication of mental space is carried out: 1. Continuously, by blocks and according to the principle of dominance. 2. Nonlinearly, as a directed and hierarchical process. 3. Depending on the spatial, temporal, and reproductive isolation. 4. Influenced by the active principle that was initially laid in neural structures of a mental space. 5. The conditions of natural selection. For a deeper understanding of the features of the manifestation of a mental space in the locus, we should understand the following:

1

Emulation (lat. aemulatio, aemulor, “vie with, rival”) in the computing technology is a complex of soft and hardware, or a combination thereof, designed to copy (or emulation) functions from one computing system (guest) to the other one, which is different from the first computer system (host) so that the emulated behavior corresponds to the behavior of the original system (guest) as closely as possible.

The Features of Manifestations of a Mental Space in the Locus

47

1. In what ways does a mental space realize its potentials in the locus? 2. What does a locus mean for a mental space? 3. What factors influence the manifestations of a mental space in the locus?

3.1 In what ways does a mental space realize its potentials in the locus? § 22. The mechanism for realization of potentials by a mental space is easier to consider as an example of a single mentality. The question: “How does the mass of interconnected nerve cells and their processes, which concentrated in the cavity of the neurocranium affect the formation, development, and interaction of loci of civilizations2?” was considered in the previous works [Bazaluk, 2005; Bazaluk, 2010; Bazaluk, 2014]. Let us consider only the basic information for our research. 1. To understand the ways of realization by a mentality of its potentials, its neurobiological features must be assumed. A mentality is an entire neural ensemble, specializing in working with the information space. As a neural structure, a mentality exists only in the human brain. In chapter two, creating the first axiom of the theory of war and peace, we have determined that a separate locus of civilization and man have a common rhizome – an evolving mentality. The question: “What is a separate locus of civilization?” can be reduced to the question “What is man himself?” As shown by research, for example, Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, Marco Iacoboni, John Nicholls, Konstantin Anokhin, Tatyana Chernigovskaya and many others, the main difference of man from other biological organisms is mainly in the peculiarities of brain development. According to Konstantin Anokhin and Tatyana Chernigovskaya, over 5 million years of evolution in the human brain in comparison with the brain of a chimpanzee (that is structurally similar to the human brain), the following changes happened [Anokhin & Chernigovskaya, 2008]: a) Changes in a genome. In 49 different parts of a human genome, the rate of changes was significantly higher than the average for the 2

On average, the human brain weighs from 1000 to 2000 grams, representing approximately 2 percent of total body weight.

48

Chapter Three

genome. Moreover, in some of them, the changes occurred 70 times faster than on average for the genome. As a result of detailed studies, the gene that had undergone the most significant changes was isolated. This gene, HAR1, was encoding a small part, some RNA, but it contained 118 differences between a human and a chimpanzee. It turned out that this gene works in the cerebral cortex from the seventh to the nineteenth week of embryonic development, when the upper layers of the cerebral cortex that determine the horizontal links are formed. b) The principal differences in the anatomy of the brain. The human brain is not only different in structure; it is three times larger than the brain of a chimpanzee. c) The principal differences in neurophysiology. The human brain is different in organizations of processes between the neural ensembles (old and new) and their inner structure. The famous Indian neurologist Vilayanur Ramachandran highlighted three parts of the brain that are present and intensively develop only in humans: Wernicke’s area in the left temporal lobe, the prefrontal cortex and the inferior parietal lobule in each parietal lobe [Ramachandran, 2012]. 2. The methodology of neurophilosophy that is included as an integral part of the methodology of geophilosophy reveals a rhizome of a separate locus of civilization as continuous and nonlinear complication of the human brain inclined to autonomy in its activities. The complication of the human brain caused by both the internal causes that are independent of the external environment and the external causes influenced by the sociocultural and technological environment. However, to say complication of the human brain is the basis of the formation and development of a locus of civilization is not quite correct. From the methodology of social sciences (sociology, social philosophy, and others), the cause of incorrectness is that the concept “brain” traditionally includes the information exclusively from neurosciences, biology, medicine, and psychology. Speaking of cerebration, in most cases, the work of neuronal populations, nervous system, and neural ensembles are involved, which are investigated by three main methods: traditional, genetic testing, and neurovisualization. However, the human brain is not only unique because of its continuous and nonlinear complicating neurobiological characteristics. Two evolutionary

The Features of Manifestations of a Mental Space in the Locus

49

streams converge in it. The first stream is continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure and functions of the neuronal ensembles, which gradually transform the human brain from the most powerful planetary power in a cosmic phenomenon3. The second stream is continuously and nonlinearly complicating external sociocultural and technological environment (at least in the understanding of Pierre Bourdieu, Karl Popper, Richard Dawkins and others). That is why, in the research, the author uses the concept of a “mentality”, which traditionally (at least in Russian literature) accumulates continuous and nonlinear complication of the brain, and such special, individual (subjective) manifestations, which are formed under the influence of the external sociocultural and technological environment. The author uses the concept of a “mentality” because it includes both complications in the neurobiology of the brain and the manifestations of the human mind. Therefore, from the author’s view, it is more correct to speak about a rhizome of a separate locus of civilization as complication of a mentality and a mental space. 3. As the neuronal ensemble, a mentality consists of consistently formed neuronal ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness, which carry out the consolidated work with the information space from the period of adolescence (17–19) onwards [Bazaluk, 2010]. In the last few decades, in reviews on neurobiology4, how genetic programs in different periods of ontogeny continuously and nonlinearly complicate the structure and functions of the brain has been explained. From the moment of birth, because of the deployment of genetic programs and technologies of the external environment, every year a child has more opportunities for interaction with the environment. Now, the following sequence of complication of the brain is known: a) From the time of birth to adolescence (up to 11–13), the neural ensemble of subconsciousness is formed and developed, which is 3

Something like Stanislaw Lem’s fantastic Solaris [Lem, 1987], or scientific and philosophical ideas about the biosphere and noosphere of Vladimir Vernadsky [Vernadsky, 1987; Vernadsky, 1991] and Gaia James Lovelock’ hypothesis [Lovelock, 2010]. 4 In the work, the author used, for example, the research reviews: Stephen Kuffler and John G. Nicholls [Kuffler & Nicholls, 1979]; John G. Nicholls, Robert Martin, Bruce Wallace, and Paul Fuchs [Nicholls et al., 2008], and others.

50

Chapter Three

responsible for the emotional, sensory functioning of the brain, moral and value orientation, etc. b) From the period of adolescence to early adulthood (up to 21–23), it is formed and developed the neural ensemble of consciousness, which is responsible for taking a conscious decision of the rising generations. c) From the early maturity period up to the end of ontogeny, the development and support of full-blown operation of a mentality as a consolidated process of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness with the external socio-cultural and technological environment is carried out. 4. At present, it is assumed that the neural ensemble of subconsciousness carries out mainly the following types of activities: – Unconscious motives, the true meaning of which is not realized because of their socially unacceptable nature, or their contradiction with other motives. – Behavioral automatisms and stereotypes, acting in a habitual manner, the realization of which is excessive because of their full usage. – Subliminal perception, which, due to a significant amount of other information is not understood. – Over conscious processes: intuition, creative impulse, and inspiration. In our opinion, the basic abilities of the neural ensemble of subconsciousness consist of: – Ability to organise using muscle energy (physical labour), the making of the simplest instruments of labour. – As a result of learning, transmit the ability to make the simplest instruments of labour for future generations. – Ability to construct (transform) the external environmental conditions to suit our continuously complicating needs, etc. Owing to the research of Noam Chomsky [Chomsky, 1972], Konrad Lorenz [Lorenz, 1998] and other scientists, it was established that the development of the neural ensemble of subconsciousness is connected with the complication of genetic programs.

The Features of Manifestations of a Mental Space in the Locus

51

5. The neural ensemble of consciousness includes the previous structures of the neural ensemble of subconsciousness, as well as qualitatively new neuron blocks. The complication of the neural ensemble of consciousness is connected with significant changes in the structure and functions of the brain. The research of Vileyanaura Ramachandran, Marco Iacoboni, John Nicholls, Bruce Wallace, Robert Martin and others have shown that these changes mainly affected the following areas of the brain: a) The frontal lobes. b) The prefrontal cortex. c) The inferior parietal lobule, most of which breaks down into the supramarginal and angular gyrus only in the human brain. At the crossroads between vision (occipital lobes), touch (parietal lobes), and hearing (temporal lobes), the inferior parietal lobule is strategically located to receive information from all sensory modalities. It is assumed that the inferior parietal lobe is involved in such specifically human activities as naming, reading, writing, and calculation [Ramachandran, 2012]. d) The visual areas of the brain (in the human brain there are 30 visual areas, while in the mammalian brain, there are no more than 10). e) Wernicke’s and Broca’s speech areas. f) The molecular mechanisms of interneuronal and internal neuronal connections (on the one hand, they provide the development of short and long-term memory, and on the other hand, they form new integrative connections between the various structures of the brain). 6. The difference of a mentality, as a neural structure, from the brain of higher animals is that the external environment itself began to form the conditioned programs – stereotypes, worldview, view of life, etc. Afterwards, they transformed into stimuli, motives, goals, objectives, and plans in life and so on, and implemented in daily activities. These programs, formed by the external environment, began to dominate over genetic programs, and the potentialities of a continuously and nonlinearly complicating mentality far exceeded the capabilities of the mammalian brains. 7. To understand the ways of implementation by a mentality and a mental space of their potentials in the locus, it is necessary to clarify the meaning of the concept “information space.” The author considers the information space as a substantive presence of the external material world in front of a mentality and inside a mentality. A mentality needs interaction with the

52

Chapter Three

information space because the formation and development of the functions of many neurobiological structures of a mentality, as well as the development and manifestation of the potentials inherent in them, depend on the impact of the external information environment. A mentality is not only inherent in the information space but is also complicated under the direct exposure of continuously and nonlinearly complicating space of the universe, the Earth’s biosphere, and noosphere. 8. As a neurobiological structure, a mentality is naturally open for information. By analogy with the “consciousness about”5 by Edmund Husserl [Husserl, 1999], we can say that a mentality is a “mentality about,” where “about” is openness, incompleteness, the direction of a process. “A mentality about” needs in the information filling and the implementation (the manifestation) of its potentials in the information space. The more and better information filling of a mentality is the more productive and creative activity i.e. the implementation that is accumulated and synthesized in a mentality. Simultaneously in the course of the implementation accumulated, the filling process is improved. Therefore, the presence of a mentality in the material world is a continuously and nonlinearly complicating process of the information filling of a mentality, and the implementation (the manifestation) of information that is accumulated, already reworked and established in the external environment. 9. An important role in the individual interaction between a “mentality about” and the information space occupies the process, the meaning of which is hidden in the concept “creative potential.” The creative potential is achieved through a regulatory compromise between the active principle that is potentially laid in the neural ensembles of a “mentality about” and the environmental conditions that stimulate the development and ensure the realization of these potentials in ontogeny. The more favourable conditions of “a struggle for existence” for the stimulation and realization of the active principle of a “mentality about” are, the more creative and large-scale activity of a person and the more significant his contribution to the development of a locus of civilization is. The harder and more uncompromising conditions of “a struggle for existence” are, the weaker

5

Consciousness is always a consciousness about something, an object [Husserl, 1999].

The Features of Manifestations of a Mental Space in the Locus

53

stimulation and limited realization of creative potentials of a mentality are in everyday life. 10. It is important to understand that each mentality (a human) is present in the world and remains in the history not as a material form, but as a creative potential embodied in the final results of activity – labour products. The higher value of a creative potential is, the higher energy encased in a product of labour is. Consequently, the more significant contribution of a particular mentality (a human) to the development of a locus of civilization is. § 23. In general, having understood the meaning of a mentality, let us return to the consideration of a mental space and the ways of the realization of its potentials at the scale of its locus. A mental space, as the totality of a certain set of mentalities, organizes its presence in the locus of civilization in two ways: through the logosphere and technosphere. Let us consider the first way of the realization by a mental space of its internal creative potentials – through the logosphere. The author understands the term “logosphere” as the ability of a mental space to denote signs, symbols, concepts, etc. of the upcoming information space, as well as to read and change their meanings. If we consider the logosphere in the teachings of Edmund Husserl, then the logosphere is, above all, the intentionality of a mental space to reveal a diversity of ways of “givenness of objects” in the material world, in the process of its continuous and nonlinear complication. Not information as an object (or a thing) presents itself to a mental space, but a mental space as a totality of “mentalities about” in the course of processes of its information content and realization of the internal potentials refers to it and discovers its meanings (content) for itself. A mental space aims at the information space and with the help of increasingly complicated technologies reveals the content of the upcoming pieces of information. Daniel Bell, Alain Touraine, Alvin Toffler, Peter Drucker, Zbigniew BrzeziĔski, John Naisbitt, Yoneji Masuda and other known sociologists and futurologists of the late 20th century proved that with each generation the value of technologies and the results of interaction of a mental space and the information space increase continuously and nonlinearly. The current level of complication of mental spaces and their manifestations in loci of civilization directly depends on the quality of the used technologies.

54

Chapter Three

Considering the logosphere as a whole, let us highlight five of the most important characteristics [Bazaluk, 2010]: 1. The Logosphere is one of the two ways with the help of which continuously and nonlinearly complicating mental spaces realize their potentials in the locus. 2. The Logosphere is virtual, because it provides work of a mental space with the signs, concepts and their meanings. On the extent and degree of the development of the logosphere, one can currently judge only by those products, which a mental space has materialized in the sociocultural and technological environment. 3. By means of the logosphere, a mental space materializes the upcoming information space. It explores the environment, denotes the found regularities in the laws of natural processes and phenomena by the signs, symbols and concepts, as well as providing their perusal of the meaning and content for future generations. In the process of the complication of a mental space, the content of signs and meanings of the concepts are also complicated. Therefore, a mental space periodically systematizes the logosphere, providing the perusal of the signs and understanding of their meanings for all generations. 4. Given a mental space nested in the information space, a mental space is not only directed at the materialization of the upcoming information but is also open to its influence. Complicating in the world of symbols, concepts and their meanings, a mental space not only enriches them with new discoveries and associations, but is also exposed to the direct impact on their part. With the help of educational technologies and its activity in the first thirty years of ontogeny, new generations of a mental space actively acquire new meanings of signs and concepts, filled with information by which a certain stereotype (template) of perception of the world is formed. In consequence, the rest of ontogeny, a mental space perceives the upcoming information space through the prevailing stereotype – the same type and the prism of stereotypes. 5. The signs, as well as the options for their perusal, are inherited. The logosphere as a way to interact a mental space with the information space promotes the inheritance of signs, symbols, concepts, and their content, as well as the options for their perusal. Continuous and nonlinear complication of a mental space entails complication of the ways of

The Features of Manifestations of a Mental Space in the Locus

55

inheritance of the signs and options for their perusal. In the history of humanity, we can identify the following stages in the development of inheritance of the signs and options for their perusal: folklore, writing, electronic media (television, video, audio recording, DVD, computers), and others. Natural, mathematical, and graphical languages, general technical concepts and theories of physics, chemistry, geology, cosmology and other sciences, models of devices, regulations for specific operations, etc. – all these are examples of the implementation of its internal creative potentials by a mental space through the logosphere. The important stages in understanding of the logosphere are the works of Plato, in which the world appears as a complication of ideas; Gottfried Leibniz, in his works the fundamental structures of the world are monads; Immanuel Kant who considered the world as a system of categories; Edmund Husserl with his phenomenological studies, and others. Thus, thanks to the logosphere, a mental space: a) Materializes the upcoming information space, discovering for itself and using new sources of energy and matter in its reformation activity. Through the logosphere, a complicating mental space tries a key to the most powerful energy and material resources of the planet and the universe, embodying them in material products of its activity – in the technosphere. b) Provides continuously and nonlinearly complicating neural structures by the necessary amount of information, which, on the one hand, influences the development of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness, on the other hand, it creates the stereotypes and patterns of worldview and thinking. The model of worldview and thinking in a mental space that was formed by the logosphere has a direct impact on the direction of the realization of the internal creative potentials of a mental space in the locus of civilization. § 24. Let us consider the second way of the implementation by a mental space of its internal creative potentials – through the technosphere. If, through the logosphere, a mental space creates virtual artificial constructions: the world of signs, symbols, concepts and their meanings, then through the technosphere, a certain part of the virtual constructions of

56

Chapter Three

the logosphere are materialized by a mental space – embodied in concrete material forms and technologies. The history of evolution research of the technosphere (technologies) begins from the first half of the 20th century. We highlight the works of Stanislaw Lem, John Naisbitt, Vyacheslav Stepin, Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama and others. When considering the stages of the technosphere development, the emphasis in the research is shifting towards the development of synthetic, high-tech products, providing better and more large-scale realization of the internal creative potentials for a mental space. According to John Allen and Mark Nelson, the technosphere passed three main stages of development: the earliest stage was eco-technology when the basic building material was wood, and the energy source was water; paleotechnology when iron and coal dominated; and neotechnology, the transition to which happened in the early 20th century, when metal alloys and electricity began to be used [Allen & Nelson, 1991]. Lewis Mumford predicted the coming of the fourth stage – biotechnics, technics, which is based on the laws of biology. At this stage, technics are given the properties of ephemeral organisms in nature that allows achieving better results at a lower cost [Mumford, 1967]. Among the main characteristics of the technosphere, we highlight the following: 1. The technosphere is the second way its internal creativity is implemented by a mental space. Using the means of production and technology, a mental space materializes individual products of the logosphere. Through the technosphere, a mental space organises its actual presence in the material world. 2. The creative potentials of a mental space that are materialized in the technosphere are being complicated as far as the complication of a mental space itself. All of them in the upcoming information space are alien – artificial constructions, radically different from the manifestations of biological life. Studying the huge research material6, we observe an intensive substitution by a mental space of natural conditions of the 6

For example, the research of Vladimir Vernadsky, Niklas Luhmann, Guy Albert Sadle, Gordon Selley, Jane Prophet, Sergei Krichevsky and others.

The Features of Manifestations of a Mental Space in the Locus

57

upcoming informational environment by artificial constructions. A mental space like “transfers” itself from the less favourable natural environment into the artificial, created “by itself” environment that performs different objectives. For example, providing a comfortable environment for selfrealization by a mental space of the internal creative potentials; creating effective methods of environment influence on the development of the internal creative potentials; providing full materialization of creative potentials in different generations of a mental space in the locus of civilization; prolongation of ontogeny in generations of a mental space; etc. 3. Noogenesis as continuously and nonlinearly complicating sociocultural and technological conditions of a locus of civilization is mostly the materialized creative potentials of a mental space in the technosphere that have the double value. On the one hand, with continuous and nonlinear complication of a mental space, they quickly turn into a pile of useless fragments of the creative self-realization of the previous generations of a mental space in the locus. However, on the other hand, these really useless fragments of the presence of the previous generations of a mental space are denoted by the concept “cultural heritage” and effectively used in educational technologies, encouraging new generations of a mental space to more large-scaled and full self-realization. Thus, owing to the technosphere, a mental space: a) Materializes a certain part of the logosphere constructions and uses it as an enabling environment for its development. For example, now (just a few million years into the development), thanks to the evolution of technologies in the field of genetic engineering and medicine, the average prolongation of the ontogeny of a mental space, in comparison with the hominids, has increased at least three times! For this reason, at the scale of the Earth, the following tendency is observed: the more complicated technologies (more perfect technosphere) are, the longer ontogeny and the fuller realisation of the internal creative potentials of a mental space. b) The materialized creative potentials not only organise the actual presence of a mental space in the material world but are also used as a cultural heritage in educational technologies. They form the necessary models (clichés) of the world-view and orientation of the manifestations of a mental space in the locus of civilization among the rising generation.

58

Chapter Three

§ 25. We have considered two main ways of implementation of the internal creative potentials in ontogeny by a mental space: through the logosphere and technosphere. However, in this question, the important role plays other factors too, for example: – The structure and elements of a mental space (the works of Vilfredo Pareto, Talcott Parsons, Pierre Bourdieu, Anthony Giddens, and others). – The formed models of world-view and thinking (or in the other way, ideology of various social classes and other social groups), which have a direct impact on the direction and efficiency of implementation of the creative potentials by a mental space in the location (the works of Antoine Destutt de Tracy, Karl Marx, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Karl Mannheim, Erich Fromm, Clifford James Geertz, and others). – The material, energy, and information possibilities of a locus of civilization, within the boundaries of which are implemented by a mental space of its potentials (the works of Karl Marx, Max Weber, Joseph Schumpeter, Emile Durkheim, and others). – The communication features in a mental space as it does between mental spaces (the works of Pierre Bourdieu, Harold Adams Innis, Herbert Marshall McLuhan, and others). The listed factors have a direct impact on the effectiveness of the methods of implementation of its potentials by a mental space in the locus of civilization. The differences in the political, social, economic, spiritual, scientific, and technical manifestations of mental spaces in the locations often differentiate mental spaces and loci of civilization from each other cardinally. Thousands of studies were devoted to each of these spheres of implementation. Dozens of the models of political, social, economic and spiritual organizations of societies were created, which are connected with the subject matter of war and peace. For example, a leading American political scientist, Jack S. Levy, has made a comprehensive review of the literature on the causes of war and the conditions of peace in political science, which includes more than 1,000 not having lost their relevance of sourcebooks [Levy, 2015]. The richest empirical basis that was created by the generations of scientists allows us to concentrate solely on the general, fundamental matters. Researching the subject and object of geophilosophy, we lean on a priori the parallel complicating empirical basis of other fields of science, turning

The Features of Manifestations of a Mental Space in the Locus

59

to its achievements and checking the assertions of our theory in it. We formalize many assertions of the theory, guided by only one desire – compactly to set out the basics of the theory of war and peace through the expanded methodology of geophilosophy. If necessary, the formalized assertions of the theory are easy to decipher, enrich, add and check in the empirical basis, on which we are building our theory. Having dealt with the basic ways of implementation by a mental space of its internal potentials in the locus of civilization, we shall proceed to consider the attitude of a mental space to its location.

3.2 What does a locus of civilisation mean for the mental space? § 26. In the early 20th century, the eminent German geographer Alfred Hettner wrote that geography “explores different spaces and places of the Earth’s surface in the nature of the three kingdoms of inorganic nature and plants, animals, humans, and human activity prevailing in them” [Hettner 1930: 122]. The ontological foundation of philosophy of geography endlessly changes of borders of loci of civilizations. The key works in this field are the research of Otto Schlüter, the author of the term “cultural landscape”; Carl Sauer, the founder of modern cultural geography, etc. In the book of Julian Tyutyunnik, one can learn about the historiography and the modern level of achievements in this problem field [Tyutyunnik, 2011]. Building upon the achievements of the predecessors, we note the following. With the further complication of the neural ensembles of a mental space, its attitude to the locus was being changed as to the geographical or imaginary (virtual) territory, within which a mental space was being complicated. Regarding the relations of a mental space to the locus, we highlight three main stages: 1. The locus as a geographical territory. 2. The locus as an imaginary (virtual) territory. 3. The locus as a consciously chosen territory for the full ontogeny. Let us consider the options of relations between a complicating mental space and a locus of civilization.

60

Chapter Three

§ 27. We have already noted that in the complication of a mental space at least two major stages can be highlighted: 1. The formation and development of the neural ensemble of subconsciousness (for a few million years), which is responsible for the unconscious work of the brain and sensory emotional attitude of a mental space to the locus. 2. The formation and development of the neuronal ensemble of consciousness (up to a hundred thousand years), which carries out a conscious activity and rational (meaningful) attitude to the locus. The whole period of the complication of the neural ensemble of subconsciousness, a mental space referred to its location purely as to a geographical territory. Utilitarian characteristics of the locus were valuable for a mental space: availability and accessibility of material, energy and information resources, climate, location, etc. As a rule, a locus as a geographical territory is characterized by the following parameters: length (area); the features of geographical position; a certain type (types) of the natural landscape; the degree of economic development; the ability to perform the functions of “spatial basis of society activity” [Malska et al., 2012]. However, with each new generation of mentalities, with the complication of unconsciousness and its manifestations, the utilitarian attitude of a mental space to the geographical territory was replaced by a sensoryemotional attitude. A locus as a geographical territory began to evoke a sensory and emotional attachment, deification, value orientation, inheritance, comprehension etc. in a mental space. For example, the ancient Indian Vedas and ancient Chinese philosophy (that is several thousands of years old) are penetrated by the sensory and emotional connection between a complicating mental space and its location. The dominance of unconsciousness in the relations of a mental space to the locus of civilization reveals a number of important consequences for our research. All of them are connected with the features of the manifestation of subconsciousness in the sociocultural and technological environment: 1. The stereotypes of behavior and information perception formed at the level of subconsciousness are stable and continual. They act as unconscious motives that influence behavioral automatism, over-conscious

The Features of Manifestations of a Mental Space in the Locus

61

and conscious processes. A mental space that is turned towards the locus through subconsciousness is a kind of cliché that remains during the whole ontogeny. Love for the Motherland, for the most part, is forever. 2. In turn, the inverse influence of a locus as a geographical territory on the formation of stereotypes in a mental space has a strong motivational force that serves the cause of many conscious manifestations of a mental space in the logosphere and technosphere. A locus perceived by subconsciousness becomes a part of the unconscious manifestations of a mental space, which, in turn, motivates conscious decisions and actions. 3. The direction of a mental space by subconsciousness to the locus is an irrational interaction influencing the following processes: – The degree of activity and direction of the internal creative potentials of a mental space. – The chosen methods and ways of the struggle for its existence, and not only at the scale of the locus as a geographical territory. – The criteria of a regulatory compromise. Given the fact that the formation and development of conscious activity is carried out on the basis of subconsciousness, a mental space acquires specificity in terms of its locus, which manifests in the value orientations, social and cultural activities, organizations of the logosphere and technosphere, attitude to other mental spaces, geographical territories, etc. The potential of a locus of civilization as a geographical territory has a direct impact on the process of continuous and nonlinear complication of a mental space. The more the natural resources of geographical territory are limited, the more a mental space is aimed at penetration into neighboring loci of civilizations. The richer the natural resources of a territory are, the more a mental space emphasizes the need to protect them from external penetrations. The harsh geographical conditions, as well as the scarce natural resources of the locus, influence the sensory emotional world perception of a mental space through subconsciousness. Severity, inclemency, moodiness, intolerance, implacability, anger, aggression, austerity, aimed at fighting and others – that is the minimum of the sensory emotional manifestations of a mental space in the locus with limited natural resources. The geographical territory that is rich in natural resources meets the needs of a

62

Chapter Three

complicating mental space, forms the opposing sensory emotional manifestations: kindness, hospitality, gentleness, friendliness, tolerance, and others. § 28. The formation of the neuronal ensemble of consciousness and its manifestation in the sociocultural and technological environment began about 100 thousand years ago. Approximately from that period, it began to change the attitude of a mental space to the locus. Continuous and nonlinear complication of a mental space associated primarily with its transition from mostly unconscious manifestations to conscious activity led to the appearance of new product activities – material-virtual and virtual. A mental space complicating in the borders of the geographical territory got the opportunity to realize its internal creative potentials in a qualitatively new environment – in an imaginary (virtual) space. Over time, imaginary space turned into a real virtual territory, at the scales of which the new generations of a mental space began to realize their creative potentials. Emotional attitude of a mental space, i.e. its attitude towards its locus through subconsciousness, began to shift from the geographical territory to virtual space. In virtual space, a mental space had more freedom and opportunities for the realization of internal creative potentials. A few more centuries ago, the imaginary (virtual) territory occupied a very small part within the geographical territory. Now, for modern generations of mental spaces, it has all changed dramatically. In many parts of Earth’s space, loci as the geographical territory have lost their significance. A mental space continued its complication at a new organizational level, overcoming the narrow boundaries of the geographical territories. A locus as an imaginary (virtual) territory became for a mental space both a vital and emotionally charged locus as the geographical territory. The difference between the geographical and imaginary territory, at the scale of which a mental space implements its internal creative potentials, can be shown, for example, on the difference between the nationality and the nation. The methodology of ethnology, which geophilosophy uses, considering one of the external manifestations of a mental space – ethnic

The Features of Manifestations of a Mental Space in the Locus

63

communities7, as a consistent, qualitatively complicating transition: tribes ĺ nationalities ĺ nations. Tribes, nationalities and nations are the external manifestations of a complicated mental space, which are connected, including the location of the locus. A nationality as the external manifestation of a mental space is formed and developed at the scale of the geographical territory. The main characteristics of a nationality followed from the features of geography of the locus. A nation as the external manifestation of a mental space is formed and developed in the qualitatively new locus. A nation is a certain set of mental spaces, which realize their unconscious and conscious potentials in a locus as an imaginary (virtual) territory. A modern understanding of a nation is represented in the book of Benedict Anderson [Anderson, 2001]. Research by Eric Hobsbawm, Anthony D. Smith, Miroslav Hroch, etc played an important role in the study of this problem. Andersen gives the following definition of a nation: “It is an imagined political community – and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign” [Andersen, 2001: 28]. Andersen considers that the history of a nation has nearly 200 years. A nation is an artificial product of a complicated mental space, which has its own structure and performs specific functions. One such function is an integration (joining) of different nationalities into one nation. The existence and development of a nation provides the social institutions that create the “history of a nation.” Through the family and education institutions, the history of a nation and its main markers are laid in the basis for the new generations of a mental space. Media actualizes and develops the nation’s language, in which the political, socio-economic, cultural and scientific significance of the nation is continuously replicated. Thus, a nationality is a mental space, which is complicated at the scale of a particular geographical territory and the settlement of a nation. A nation is a set of nationalities: mental spaces and geographical territories, which are formed and protected by government institutions. It is a virtual territory, which is apt to endless localisation. The boundaries of a nation as a virtual territory can be expanded or narrowed. A nation can disappear, but a nationality can remain.

7

Ethnic communities are large groups of people united by common culture, language, and their historical cultural identity.

64

Chapter Three

§ 29. In the last decade, a new tendency of the attitude of a mental space to the locus has become clear. In our view, it is connected with three main processes: 1. Complication of a mental space is carried out in the direction of the transition from a predominantly unconscious activity to a predominantly conscious one. In the manifestations of a mental space, the manifestations of the neuronal ensemble of consciousness became more visible. 2. The Earth’s mental space develops unequally, and by centres: in some loci, for various reasons, the complication of a mental space and its manifestations is on the same level, and in other loci, it is considerably inferior in terms of development. 3. The predominating work of the neuronal ensemble of consciousness changes the role of separate mentalities in a mental space – they become freer, more self-sufficient and independent. This leads to a change in the structure of mental spaces: highly developed mentalities are less connected with the original mental space and the locus, and migrate more freely to the other mental spaces and loci. This whole set of changes has led to the fact that mental spaces begin to form with the same interests, and loci are regarded as territories that were deliberately chosen for the full ontogeny. The most famous example of the new format of a mental space and its locus is Silicon Valley, located in the south-western part of San Francisco, California (USA). This locus in Earth’s space is characterized by a high density of high-tech companies connected to the development and production of computers and their components, particularly microprocessors, as well as software, mobile devices, biotechnology, and so on. The appearance and development of this technology centre is connected with the concentration of leading universities, major cities at a distance of less than an hour, sources of financing for new companies, and the Mediterranean-type climate.

3.3 What factors influence manifestations of a mental space in the locus of civilization? § 30. After considering the ways of a mental space realising creative potentials, and the types of attitude of a mental space to the locus of civilization, we need to consider the factors that influence the manifestations of a mental space in the locus and beyond.

The Features of Manifestations of a Mental Space in the Locus

65

The four groups of factors influence the manifestations of a mental space in the locus: physicochemical, predisposing, provoking and supporting. Let us consider them8: 1. The physicochemical factors of the external environment have the impact of near and far space, planetary characteristics, and physicochemical characteristics of the landscape – the location of a mental space. The physicochemical factors influence the neurobiological and biological processes, and indirectly manifest in the products of the logosphere and technosphere. In this field, we highlight the research of Alexander Chizhevsky [Chizhevsky, 1976; Chizhevsky, 1995], Jonathan Anderson [Anderson, 1985]; Vilen Baraboi [Baraboi, 1991], and others. 2. The predisposing factors follow from the features of complication of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness of a mental space. They are formed and transmitted from generation to generation, or in ontogeny. They include genetic, biological, psychological and social factors. In this field there are a lot of interesting studies, for example, Isaac Asimov and William Boyd [Asimov & Boyd, 2005]; Yuri Alexandrovsky [Alexandrovsky, 2001]; Raisa Berg and Sergey Davidenkov [Berg & Davidenkov, 1971]; Matt Ridley [Ridley, 1999] and many others. Briefly, let us consider the predisposing factors: a) The genetic factors predispose neurobiological activity of a mental space. They provide a birth both gifted mentalities (whose neural structure provides better and more effective manifestations in the logosphere or technosphere) and mentalities with pathological psychic disorders, such as schizophrenia, epilepsy, and affective disorders. These are gifted mentalities, which are able to lead a mental space to new levels of perfection, and on the contrary, mentalities with pathologies that can lead a mental space to breakup and disappearance. b) The biological factors predispose neurobiological and biological manifestations of a mental space. For example, age is an important biological factor. In periods of childhood, adolescence, youth, adulthood and old age, the manifestations of mentalities owing to various biological and neurobiological indices differ significantly.

8

We will look more closely at these factors in the next chapter.

66

Chapter Three

c) The psychological (or personal) factors predispose the features of manifestations of a mental space in ontogeny. They are formed as a result of the specificity of the complication of the neuronal ensemble of subconsciousness under the influence of the external social environment. Psychological factors form the basis of a mentality - its unconscious, and therefore, they predispose individual and unique emotional manifestations. For example, disturbed people might develop fears and depression easier; they are more susceptible to stress and apt to manipulations. d) The social factors predispose manifestations of a mental space in ontogeny. The main social factor is a family. It is in a family, in the forming child mentality, that the basic stereotypes of worldview, values, behavioral automatism, etc. are laid. 3. The provoking factors are mainly connected with the influence of the external environment on complicated generations of a mental space in ontogeny. In this field, we may highlight the works of Hans Eysenck and Michael Eysenck [Eysenck & Eysenck, 2001]; Stanislav Grof [Grof, 1994]; Konrad Lorenz [Lorenz, 1998]; Nassim Taleb [Taleb, 2009], and others. The provoking factors are divided into physical and social psychological. Under physical factors, we consider injuries and somatic disorders (brought on by shock, accidents, catastrophes, acts of terrorism), which affect the violation of mental health and, accordingly, the quality and the manifestation of a mental space. Social psychological factors arise in recurring (or prolonged) stressful situations and cause a variety of phobias: a fear of reality, a fear of water (aquaphobia), a fear of being in closed or small spaces (claustrophobia); obsessional neurosis, etc. 4. The supporting factors are connected with the influence of sociocultural and technological environments. They include, for example, a long-term impact of propaganda, an unfavorable family situation, a long-term traumatic situation, etc. This problem was investigated by Stanislav Grof, Charles H. Zeanah, Charles A. Nelson III, Nathan A. Fox, Sergey KaraMurza, Igor Kon and many others. The supporting factors act as a peculiar stamp, in the borders of which a mental space gradually consolidates all its manifestations of activity. The four groups of factors have a direct impact on the most important mental processes: sensation, perception, memory, thinking, speech et al., which in turn, through the logosphere and technosphere, have an impact on the manifestations of a mental space in the locus.

The Features of Manifestations of a Mental Space in the Locus

67

Conclusion of chapter three § 31. Thus, thanks to the methodology of geophilosophy, the author has come to realize that a separate locus of civilization is a mental space and the totality of its manifestations in the locus. Without going into detail, we examined the features of the manifestation of a mental space in the locus of civilization and found that: 1. Continuous and nonlinear complication of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness impact on the manifestations of a mental space in the locus, i.e., on the development of the structure and functions of a mental space, as well as the external environmental conditions. Evolution as a complication, with every new generation, complicates the structure and manifestations of a mental space, and does so unevenly, both at the scale of the Earth and a separate locus of civilization. 2. The manifestations of a mental space in the locus of civilization are periodically restructured and systematized. I am speaking about “cycles of great cultures” of Oswald Spengler, “scientific revolutions” of Thomas Kuhn and other understandings of “cultural revolutions” [Spengler, 1998; Spengler, 1999; Kuhn 1977], which systematize, “build in” new manifestations of a mental space to the already existing sociocultural and technological environment of a locus. 3. The influence of a mental space on the formation, development and interaction of a separate locus of civilization is carried out through the logosphere and technosphere. The four groups of factors influence the continuous and nonlinear complication of a mental space: physicochemical, predisposing, provoking and supporting. By and large, all the manifestations of mental spaces forming loci of civilizations are the history of the complications of mental spaces in the locations under the influence of the four groups of factors. Understanding the factors that influence manifestations of mental spaces in loci “here and now” reveals the causes of endless localisation of Earth’s space or, otherwise, lays the foundations of the theory of war and peace, which would explain why some complicating mental spaces remain in their locations, while others seek to extend its influence on the nearby and remote loci of civilizations.

CHAPTER FOUR THE CAUSES OF ENDLESS LOCALISATION OF EARTH’S SPACE, OR THE THEORY OF WAR AND PEACE

Human aggression (especially collective) has a tendency to increase as the possibilities of its use. —Philip G. Zimbardo § 32. According to the outline of the book, in chapter four we have to reveal the causes of the endless localisation of Earth’s space, or otherwise, to create the theory of war and peace, which would explain why some complicating mental spaces remain in their locations, while others seek to extend their influence on neighboring and remote loci of civilizations? In chapter four, we represent the oft-quoted definition of war by Carl von Clausewitz, that war is “not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means” [Clausewitz, 2007: 25] this is only one (minor) aspect in the variety of manifestations of a rhizome in a locus of civilization. We prove that a problem of war and peace originates much deeper, at the root – in universal factors and causes of evolution, in the very nature of the Earth’s mental space. That is why it requires an interdisciplinary approach and research, primarily the methods in neurobiology, psychology, and social philosophy. The facts and regularities from the field of military history and a history of the art of war are the empirical basis of the theory of war and peace, in which the features of continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure and functions of a mental space are only manifested, but not formed. In chapter four, using the expanded methodology of geophilosophy, we will answer the following questions:

70

Chapter Four

1. We formulate the definition of war and peace. 2. We determine the cause of the endless localisation of Earth’s space, or otherwise – the causes of war and peace. 3. We formulate the theory of war and peace, as well as its main assertions.

4.1 The definition of war and peace § 33. The methodology of geophilosophy clearly points out the fact that the ontology of the problem of war and peace lies in the features of the formation and manifestation of a mental space. Accordingly, the results of research in neurosciences: neurobiology, neuroanatomy, neuropsychology, neurology and others acquire a special significance for our research. Neurophilosophy studies comprehension and conceptualization of an array of empirical data obtained in this field of knowledge. In the author’s understanding, neurophilosophy is a science of the fundamental principles of human beings, namely, the construction and comprehension of the theoretical model of the human brain, taking into account the features of its manifestations in many different amounts – micro and macro groups. Neurophilosophy studies the features of formation, development, and manifestation of the separate brain – a mentality as well as the features of formation, development, and manifestation of different numbers of mentalities, localised in certain geographical and virtual spaces – a mental space. In the preceding chapters, we have determined that the ontology of war and peace answers the two decisive questions: 1. “What is a rhizome of the locus of civilization?” 2. “What are the causes of the endless localisation of the Earth’s mental space?” These two questions allowed us to conceptualize the variety of results of empirical studies on the problem of war and peace, and conduct systematization: from the general mass of information about the war and peace, we can highlight the information that refers to Plato’s line (in Alexander Lyubishchev’s understanding). It is the tradition of research on Plato’s line that reveals the content of the fundamental principles of the formation, development, and manifestations of localised societies (loci of civilizations) in Earth’s space and the Cosmos.

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

71

Due to the methodology of neurophilosophy, we have answered the first question. We have proved that a rhizome of a locus of civilization is a continuous and nonlinear complicating mental space, which continuously and nonlinearly realises its internal creative potentials in the material and virtual environments. The answer to the second question also lies in the field of studies in neurophilosophy. § 34. We give the second key definition of our research – the definition of war and peace. In geophilosophy, war is a violent penetration of one mental space into the locus of another mental space, which entails substantial changes in its manifestations. Peace is a coordinated interaction between mental spaces that leads at a minimum – to respect, at a maximum – to the multiplication of the manifestations of each other. The methodology of neurophilosophy defines war and peace as continuous and nonlinear interactions between mental spaces, which appear in the endless changes of location boundaries in Earth’s space. Firstly, we consider the causes of war, and then, peace. When considering the causes of war, we answer the two questions: 1. Why do separate mental spaces claim to other loci of mental spaces, or otherwise, manifest aggression? 2. Why does a mental space defend its locus from the penetration of other mental spaces, often at the expense of human life and destruction? When considering the causes of peace, we answer the question: “Why do mental spaces aspire to integration and cooperation – to peaceful coexistence?”

4.2 The causes of endless localisation of Earth’s space, or otherwise – the causes of war § 35. To reveal the causes of war, we have to answer the question: “Why do separate mental spaces claim to other loci of mental spaces, or otherwise, manifest aggression?” From our point of view, the answer to this question is in the field of studies of neurophilosophy, psychology, and social philosophy. When considering the causes of aggressive manifestations by a mental space, the author used the works of Sigmund Freud, Alexei Leontiev, Leonard Berkowitz, Neal Miller, Konrad Lorenz,

72

Chapter Four

Harry Kaufman, Erich Fromm, David Matsumoto, Rollo May, Robert A. Baron, Deborah Richardson, Robert B. Cialdini, Douglas T. Kenrick, Steven L. Neuberg, Heinz Hartmann, Nina Danilova and others. The great help in a comprehensive understanding of the problem of aggression was provided in a “Glossary of Terms of Aggression and Violence” of Dmitry Zhmurov [Zhmurov, 2011]. Let us specify the terminology of our research. A mental space-aggressor is any mental space, which uses the violence towards a locus and the manifestations of other mental space. A mental space-victim is a mental space, to which the harm can be inflicted as a result of aggression, at that in any field: rational or irrational manifestations. Actions that a mental space-aggressor carries out against a mental space-victim depending on their nature and activity, are called: conflict, violence or war. To understanding conflict, violence and war (as well as their modifications), as the aggressive manifestations of a mental space, we referred to the research: “Towards a New European Security Strategy? Assessing the Impact of Changes in the Global Security Environment”?) [Towards, 2015]; “The War in Ukraine: Lessons for Europe” edited by Artis Pabriks and Andis Kudors [The War, 2015]; Mary Kaldor [Kaldor, 2012]; Nassim N. Taleb [Ɍɚɥɟɛ, 2009; Taleb, 2012]; Jack S. Levy, William R.Thompson [Levy & Thompson, 2010]; Martin van Creveld [Creveld, 2005], and other. In the Oxford dictionary, aggression is defined as “Hostile or violent behavior or attitudes to wage war against another; readiness to attack or confront” [Oxford Dictionaries, 2016]. In the research of aggression, Dmitry Zhmurov identified the following approaches [Zhmurov, 2011]: 1. The normative approach is one for which a particular emphasis is put on its illegality and lack of conformity to accepted social norms in the definitions of aggression (the research of Olga Martynova, Tatiana Rumyantseva, et al.). 2. The depth-psychological approaches, which come from the assumption of an instinctive nature of aggression; aggression is an innate, inherent and ineradicable feature of a mental space (the research of Sigmund Freud, Erich Fromm, Konrad Lorenz, Kent Bailey, Akop Nazaretyan, et al.). 3. The targeted approaches, in which aggression is considered as a tool of successful evolution, self-affirmation, domination, adaptation or appropriation

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

73

of vital resources (e.g., the works of Luigi Valzelli, Harry Kaufman, Erich Fromm, et al.). 4. Approaches based on an assessment of consequences of aggression, which emphasize the nature of the damage suffered by the victims of aggression (e.g., Harry Kaufman, David Matsumoto, Arnold H. Buss, et al.). 5. Approaches based on an assessment of an aggressor’s intentions (David Krech, Richard S. Crutchfield, Norman Livson, Hilda Krech, Robert A. Baron, Deborah Richardson, et al. ). 6. The emotional approaches focus on the sensory component of the act of aggression (Yevgeny Trifonov, et al.). 7. The undifferentiated approaches, which do not pretend to explain the nature of the aggression, and define it within the framework of a narrowly theoretical scheme (John Dollard, Neal Miller, et al.). American psychiatrist John C. Barefoot offers to consider aggression as a structure that consists of the three components: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. The cognitive component is represented by different kinds of prejudices of a mental space-aggressor relatively to a mental space-victim, the initial malevolence, animosity, hostility, etc. The affective component is the emotion of anger, irritation, resentment, contempt, indignation, disgust, and so on. The behavioral component includes various forms of aggression, i.e., aggression itself [Barefoot, 1992]. Aggressive manifestations of a mental space are a totality of destructive actions and acts, which include: aggressive behavior, aggressive intentions, aggressive fantasy, and others. § 36. What is the nature of aggression of a mental space? Modern achievements in neurobiology and psychology allow us to talk about the nature of aggression with much greater certainty than the representatives of the depth-psychological approaches in the research of aggression: Sigmund Freud, Erich Fromm, Konrad Lorenz and others. In the chapters above, we have already considered that:

74

Chapter Four

a) Complication of a mental space is carried out under the influence of the universal factors and the causes of evolution (§ 16). b) The active principle is laid at the core of a mental space as the cause of evolution. Through the structure and functions of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness, the active principle is manifested in the form of the internal creative potentials, which are subsequently implemented in the logosphere and technosphere in the course of ontogeny (§ 23). If we take into account that formally aggressive manifestations of a mental space are just as the materialized internal creative potentials like any other, and that aggression does not always have a destructive nature1, it means its nature is not associated with the active principle. The manifestations of aggression are associated with various deviations in the complicating structure and functions of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness, the part of which refract the active principle (as natural force) in aggressive manifestations. The deviations in neurobiology of the brain are caused by the factors and causes of evolution, therefore they manifest continuously and nonlinearly. Not all deviations in complicated brains refract the active principle in aggression. A certain part of deviations (we call them positive deviations) increases the quality of the manifestations of a mental space in the locus, the other part (we call these deviations – pathologies) predisposes a mental space to aggressive manifestations. Our first postulate is based on this idea: a rhizome of aggressive manifestations of a mental space includes the pathologies, which are formed because of continuous and nonlinear complications of the structure and functions of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness. The formation of mentalities that are apt to aggressive manifestations is a natural process connected with evolutionary changes (more precisely, deviations from the norm) in the structure and functions of the human brain. Our conclusion is directly relevant to the studies of Akop Nazaretyan, which presented aggression as a natural process in the universe: “aggression is an environmental transformation (somehow always connected to the disruption of its structures) for the preservation 1 For example, the research of famous Swiss psychiatrist Adolf Guggenbuhl-Craig, or original thoughts about the origin of aggression of Akop Nazaretyan [Nazaretyan, 2007].

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

75

and dissemination of their own parameters of the agent system” [Nazaretyan, 2007: 17]. § 37. As we have said, as a result of continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure and functions of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness, the deviations are formed that influence the manifestations of a mental space in the locus of civilization. The deviations in neurobiology of the brain refract the active principle of a mentality and a mental space in peaceful, mutually advantageous, goodneighborly relations with nearby loci, or in aggressive manifestations: aggressive behavior, intention, fantasy, etc. However, along with the internal natural source of energy of a mental space – the active principle, in nature, there is an opposite universal cause of evolution by the direction of influence – natural selection. The interaction of the active principle and natural selection as the two opposing forces set a regulatory compromise – a state of peace, as inside a mental space and between mental spaces. Natural selection for a mental space is a state of sociocultural and technological environments that influence the external manifestations of neurobiological processes in ontogeny. The impact of the external environment on the complicating structure of a mental space is so strong that it cannot only stimulate the development of any pathologies in neurobiology of the human brain, refracting the active principle in aggression, but will also redirect activity of the whole mental space to the aggressive manifestations. In chapter three (§ 30), we have considered the four groups of factors that have a direct impact on continuous and nonlinear complication of a mental space and its manifestations in ontogeny. The importance of the influence of the external environmental conditions on the nature of the manifestations of a mental space in the locus, we have laid in the second postulate: the physicochemical, predisposing, provoking and supporting factors of the external environment have a direct impact on the aggressive manifestations of a mental space. Thus, the answer to the question “Why do separate mental spaces claim to other loci of mental spaces, or otherwise, manifest aggression?” is based on the two postulates. On the one hand, the cause of aggression of a mental space is the pathologies in the continuously and nonlinearly complicating structure and functions of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness, on the other hand are the

76

Chapter Four

environmental factors influencing the manifestation of a mental space in ontogeny. Let us consider these two main causes, under the influence of which the active principle of a mental space manifests not in communication and cooperation (for example, in Michael Tomasello’s understanding [Tomasello, 2008]), and in aggressive manifestations: conflicts, violence, wars. At the same time, we do not claim completeness. Our task lies elsewhere – to identify the directions in the already existing rich empirical basis, to which we referred in creating the theory of war and peace. § 38. An important role in the transformation of the active principle of a mental space in aggressive manifestations plays the pathologies, which are continuously and nonlinearly formed in the structures and manifested functions of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness, at birth and during ontogeny. At a minimum, the two world-famous schools of thought, psychoanalytic and ethological, indicate that aggression is connected with certain deviations in the structure and functions of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness. Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud, Heinz Hartmann, Ernst Kris, Raymond Dart, Konrad Lorenz, Robert Ardrey, Desmond Morris, Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt and many others wrote about it. In recent decades, this view is confirmed by neurobiological research. Fred Plum, Alexander G. Reeves, William R. Markesbery, Kenneth Moyer and other neuroscientists, proved the connection of genetically linked mental disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, paranoia, etc.) with uncontrollable bouts of aggression. The influence of the pathologies such as the hypothalamus, of almond-shaped structure, and some areas of orbital prefrontal cortex on the manifestations of aggression was found. The clinical observations have shown that patients with a tumor in the middle part of the hypothalamus and damage of frontal cortex lesions are often aggressive [Boulding, 1963; Moyer, 1976; Nicholls et al., 2008]. In turn, the destruction of almondshaped nuclei implies the extinction of animal aggression, and the removal of the new cortex leads to the fact that the animals go into a rage at the slightest opposition or even minor pain. In the second half of the 20th century, Cornelius G. Wiersma, Katsuo Ikeda, David J. Adams, and others have found the command neurons that trigger the reaction of aggression and are not excited at other reactions [Danilova & Krylova, 1998; Danilova, 2000].

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

77

In 1965, Patricia Jacobs examined the prisoners in one of the Scottish prisons and identified the dependence between chromosomal pathology and criminal tendencies. Jacobs concluded that the combination of XYY chromosomes is much rarer in people who had not committed criminal offences than in the criminals2. According to Dinesh Bhugra, as a result of 132 pieces of international research, it was found that the median prevalence of schizophrenia was 4.6 per 1,000 persons, and morbid risk of disease was 7.2 per 1,000 persons during a lifetime [Bhugra, 2005]. If the other pathologies in neurobiology of the brain are added to these results, then the percentage spread of mentalities that are apt to aggression becomes higher than 1 percent of the total number of a mental space. All over the world, there are growing numbers of the mentally ill in populations. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), by 2020 it is expected that mental disorders will be among the first five diseases that lead to disability. Thus, according to WHO (2011), at the beginning of the 21st century, about 450 million people in the world suffer from mental disorders, of which 150 million people suffer from depression, 50 million from epilepsy, 25 million from schizophrenia, 24 million from Alzheimer’s disease, and more than 115 million suffer from mental disorders due to alcohol and drug use. Every year 1 million people commit suicide, which exceeds the number of road accident victims and the number of people killed in military operations (it is believed that 10– 20 million people attempt suicide in the world every year). More than 25 percent of people in this or that period of life discover different severe mental disorders. Every fourth family has at least one member suffering from one or another form of mental disorder. Among patients, seeking medical help from doctors in clinics and hospitals with somatic complaints, mental illness is detected in 20–25 percent of cases [Psychiatry Wars, 2015: 53]. Erich Fromm described the most notable manifestations of pathologies in the complicated structure of a mentality. These pathologies in the middle

2

Samuel Chavkin, Ernest B. Hook and some other authors have questioned the reliability of Patricia Jacobs’ results.

78

Chapter Four

of the 20th century have turned Europe into a “bloody land”3. This is about Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, who had these pathologies in their brain functions. Studying the malignant manifestations of aggression, Fromm showed that Stalin’s mentality was a classic case of a nonsexual sadism, and Hitler’s mentality was a clinical case of necrophilia [Fromm, 1994]. § 39. Let us consider the manifestations of the second postulate – the physicochemical, predisposing, provoking and supporting factors of the external environment that refract the active principle of a mental space in aggressive manifestations. We begin with the physicochemical factors of the external environment. In the early 20th century, Alexander Chizhevsky proved the effect of solar activity on the bursts of activity of biological organisms and a human mentality on the basis of the rich research material [Chizhevsky, 1976]. In the research of Boris Vladimirsky, Michel Gauquelln, Akop Nazaretyan, Leo Kislovsky, Natalia A. Temuryants et al., it was proved that, for example, natural electromagnetic fields and space weather as a totality of dynamic processes occurring in the Sun and in the interplanetary medium, have a direct impact on many physiological and biochemical parameters of the body, an impact on a human mentality, individual and collective behavior. Solar storms cause increased nervousness, irritability, and aggressiveness in humans. In the model “Evolving Matter”, which the author has been developing for the last 30 years, the main assumptions of which are accepted as the second axiom of the theory of war and peace are proved: – The fact of nesting of a mental space and its manifestations in the Earth’s biosphere (in the understanding of Vladimir Vernadsky and James Lovelock). – The fact of nesting of the Earth’s biosphere in space of Inert Matter (in the terminology and the understanding of Vladimir Vernadsky) [Bazaluk, 2016]. The ideas of Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Vernadsky, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and others, through the modern achievements of science, are 3

The name of the bestselling book “Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin” by Timothy Snyder [Snyder, 2010].

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

79

represented as the continuous and nonlinear complication of matter in the direction: Inert Matter ĺ Living Matter ĺ Intelligent Matter (the Earth’s mental space), and forward [Bazaluk, 2016]. This sequence of the complication indicates that not only do the cosmic and planetary external environmental factors directly influence the Earth’s mental space, but also the physicochemical factors of the biosphere, in particular – ecosystems. The pioneering studies in this field belong to: – Vasily Dokuchaev, Vladimir Sukachev, Eugene P. Odum and others who developed the concept of the ecosystem. – Konrad Lorenz, one of the first drew his attention to the similarity of manifestations of aggression in biological organisms and humans, as well as the similarity of aggressive peaks in animals and humans [Lorenz, 1994; Lorenz, 1998]. – Michel Gauquelin, which with the help of statistical research has tried to prove the interaction of professional achievements of a man with the location of the planets at the moment of his birth. – Alexander Chizhevsky, whose research laid the foundation for a new direction of scientific research: the impact of space weather on a person in space and on the Earth [Space Weather, 2013]. – Robert A. Baron, Deborah Richardson, James Rotton, Tim Barry, and others, which offered and argued the assumption about the impact of air quality on the aggression of a person. Thus, the physicochemical factors of the external environment can have both a direct and indirect impact on the manifestations of aggression. Space activity influences directly, and also through the activeness of ecosystems on the neurobiological processes in a mental space, activating unconscious and conscious manifestations of aggression. § 40. Let us consider the predisposing external environmental factors. The predisposing factors include: biological, psychological and social factors4.

4

In § 30, when we were examining the factors influencing on the manifestation of a mental space in the locus of civilization, we highlighted four predisposing factors: genetic, biological, psychological and social. Now we are examining the external environmental factors predisposing a mental space to aggression. This is somewhat different. The genetic factor is not the external factor but internal ones that we had examined before (§ 38). All other factors (including biological) are external to the complicating neurobiology of the brain.

Chapter Four

80

a) The biological factors as the cause of aggression. The complication sequence: Inert Matter ĺ Living Matter ĺ Intelligent Matter (the Earth’s mental space) and forward5 indicates that directly influence manifestations by a mental space of aggression do not only have the physicochemical factors of the external environment but also the biological factors, in particular: – Heredity, which influences the features of the complication of morphology and physiology of organisms – the biological environment, in which complication of a mental space takes place; – Disorders of the hormonal system. – The availability of severe or repeated traumatic brain injuries in anamnesis. – Infectious diseases. – Intoxication and others. Health, working capacity, recreation, the ontogenetic duration, the activity rate of a mental space, age, etc. – all of them are the biological factors predisposing a mental space to aggressive manifestations. Despite a few million years of the complication of a mental space in the biosphere of the Earth, a mental space does not become free (and will maybe never become free), from the influence of the biological evolution. Thanks to the research of Fred Plum, Alexander G. Reeves, William R. Markesbery, Paul J. Eslinger, Antonio Damasio and others, the connection was established between hormonal disturbances and aggressive manifestations of a mental space. For example: – The flux of testosterone in males causes increased and uncontrolled aggression (Ronald P. Rohner, and others). – In females, hormonal disturbances in premenstrual and menstrual periods play a crucial role, which leads to excessive irritability, outbursts of anger, and uncontrolled actions (e.g. the research of Katrina Dalton, Morton Hunt, Kenneth Moyer etc.). The results of the research in this field are described in the review article “Premenstrual Tension, Medicine and Law” by Irwin N. Perr [Perr,

5

See [Bazaluk, 2014].

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

81

1958] and the book “Psychobiology of Aggression” by Kenneth Moyer [Moyer, 1976]6. – Neurotransmitters such as norepinephrine, acetylcholine, dopamine, serotonin, gamma-Aminobutyric Acid (GABA) in a certain way are connected to the level of aggression in animals and humans [Kuffler & Nicholls, 1979; Nicholls et al., 2008]. Rolf Loeber, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber and others showed a decrease of aggression with age. Thanks to these studies, it is believed that mental spaces in which mentalities of the older generations are dominated, manifest less aggression than mental spaces in which young people dominate. For its part, Gaston Bouthoul, Jack Goldstone, Gary Fuller, Gunnar Heinsohn and others developed a theory, according to which the combination of a large number of young men with the scarcity of permanent jobs leads to an increased probability of war. b) The psychological factors as the cause of aggression. Complication of a mental space in ontogeny is carried out in the sociocultural environment, in which the biological and neurobiological predisposition of a mental space to aggression faces with social attitudes. As a result, behavioral stereotypes are formed, the totality of which determines the direction of the manifestations of a mental space in the locus and beyond it. In this field, the works of Evan Durbin and John Bowlby are considered classics, which first expressed the idea that aggression is peculiar to human nature; William Thomas, one of the founders of American sociology and social psychology; Florian Znaniecki, one of the founders of empirical sociology and humanistic sociology; Robert Park, an American sociologist, who laid the foundations of urban sociology; Jerome Brune, Dimitri Uznadze and many others. Uznadze’s school of thought recognizes the existence of the stereotypes of aggression and aggressive sets of a mental space. The aggressive sets are the unconscious state of readiness of a mental space to aggression in certain situations. The aggressive stereotypes are constant 6

Morton and co-authors, as a result of the study of 249 volunteers with premenstrual symptoms at Westfield State Farm, indicated that 51 percent of the prison population (131 of 257 inmates), with an average age of 32.4 years old, and 33 percent of the reformatory population (118 of 358 inmates), with an average age of 21.4 years old, suffered from premenstrual tension. The review of the inmates’ records indicated that 62 percent of crimes of violence were committed in the premenstrual week [Morton et al., 1953]. Women’s aggression occurs in the period connected with changes in serotonin levels in the cerebrospinal fluid.

82

Chapter Four

hostile behavior, which is repeated in an unchanged state and devoid of any thoughts and reflexivity. Along with the formation of the stereotypes of aggression and aggressive sets, an important psychological factor predisposing a mental space to aggression is frustration. The works of Ivan Pavlov, Sigmund Freud, Reed Lawson, Leonard Berkowitz, John Dollard, Neal Miller and many others have greatly expanded the understanding of the problem. Simplistically, frustration is a destructive mental state that occurs when the full or partial impossibility to implement the internal creative potentials by a mental space in the locus. If, ideally, the internal creative potentials are realized in the usual (stereotypical) behavior in the logosphere and technosphere, then at the time of frustration, the natural direction of the active principle is suppressed by social taboos. There is a conflict between an individual and society, often accompanied by aggression from both sides. Dmitry Zhmurov, researching the psychological predisposing factors of aggression, considers the factors that are formed in the process of socialization of the rising generations of a mental space: cognitive, emotional, volitional, and others. He considers them as follows [Zhmurov, 2011]: – The cognitive factors are, above all, certain ways of thinking and mediating aggressive behavior. These are so-called aggressive persuasions, which are closely connected with the formation of the strategy and tactics of behavior, interpretation of different influencing stimuli and situations, as well as the context of social communication. – The emotional factors are the tendency to anger and rage, motivating aggressive actions; heightened affective excitability in a situation of frustration, anxiety, affective disorders (mania, depression, dysphoria), and emotional lability. – The volitional factors provide a certain level of control of emotional reactions and behavior in general, the ability to withstand stressful situations. An important place among the psychological factors takes aggressiveness in the structure of depression. For the first time, the problem of a combination of aggression and depression has been regarded in psychoanalysis, in the works of Sigmund Freud, Karl Abraham, Melanie Klein, Viktor Frankl, and others. Freud’s school of thought revealed the

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

83

growing propensity of an individual (and a mental space as a whole) to cause self-harm and harm to others against the background of depression. The high level of aggression in depression is combined with marked anxiety, motor disinhibition, emotional lability, insomnia, fear, and others. George Gerbner, Larry Gross, Ronald S. Drabman, Margaret Hanratty Thomas, and others investigated the problem of changes in an individual image of reality changes in an individual’s worldview connected with the constant supervision of violence and conflicts in real life, the media, etc7. They found that the oft-repeated observations of aggression lead to the fact that the world is beginning to be perceived as threatening and hostile. Consequently, a heightened sense of danger arises in an individual that develops potentially defensive aggressive behavior8. By analyzing the numerous studies, Dmitry Zhmurov concludes: “Clinical observations give enough grounds to state that aggressive behavior is characterized primarily by such kinds of psychopathic personalities: paranoid, epileptic, schizoid and explosive psychopathy. Aggressive representatives of various clinical variants of psychopathy are combined into a group of antisocial psychopathy (sociopathy)” [Zhmurov, 2011]. c) The social factors as the cause of aggression. The social factors that predispose a mental space to aggression are divided into micro and macrosocial. The micro-social factors are determined: – The characteristics of a parental family: its members, the quality of upbringing, favorable or unfavorable conditions of upbringing (the research of Erich Fromm, Albert Bandura, Arnold Buss, Robert A. Baron, Deborah Richardson, Ivan Ilyin, and others). – The characteristics of an individual himself: social and property status, education level, employment status (Alexey Leontiev, Alexander Luria, Sergey Rubinstein et al.).

7

On this problem, strong emotions are caused by the book of Belarusian Nobel laureate Svetlana Alexievich [Alexievich, 2008; Alexievich, 2016]. 8 Until now, the observations of a veteran of the Second World War, military psychologist Jesse Glenn Gray are still relevant. His impressive book “The Warriors: Reflections on Men in Battle” [Gray, 1998].

84

Chapter Four

– The features of educational technology: the so-called syndrome of pedagogical (didactic) violence – the emergence of complex variations in health status of pupils under the influence of inadequate teaching methods, the activities and training programs (the works of Albert Bandura, Ivan Ilyin, Valery Ganuzin, Dmitry Zhmurov and others). – The features of interpersonal communication: formal and informal status of an individual, individual adaptation measure, communication preferences, and so on (George Gerbner, Larry Gross, Ronald S. Drabman, and others). To the micro-social factors predisposing a mental space to aggression, Dmitry Zhmurov refers the use of alcohol and drugs by parents, negative parenting behaviors, lack of socialisation, environmental influences on antisocial behavior, the features of upbringing and socialisation of boys compared to girls, etc. [Zhmurov, 2011]. The macro-social factors provide the link of aggression with the most general tendencies of the development of a mental space: political, social, economic, demographic processes. For example, William Durham proposed a model in which he examines the cause of aggressive manifestation by a mental space, the presence or absence of competition for the resources of a defined geographical area [Durham, 1976]. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Alastair Smith, Randolph M. Siverson and James D. Morrow offered the selectorate theory, in which was examined the features of the development of relations between the leaders and people [Bueno de Mesquita et al., 2003]. To the predisposing social factors, we also refer the social learning theory of aggression, which comes from the fact that aggressive behavior: a) needs to be studied; b) this behavior requires consolidation and, c) any manifestation of aggression needs to be provoked. The works of Albert Bandura, Walter Mischel, John Dollard, Neal Miller, and others played an important role in the creation of the social learning theory. Thus, to some extent, the predisposing biological, psychological and social factors have a direct impact on aggressive manifestations of a mental space in ontogeny. § 41. Let us consider the third group of the external environmental factors that have a direct impact on the manifestation of aggression by a mental

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

85

space – the provoking factors. The provoking factors are divided into physical and socio-psychological: a) To the physical factors that provoke aggression of a mental space, we refer traumas and somatic diseases that influence mental health condition and, accordingly, the manifestations of a mental space. Having passed through shock, accidents, acts of terrorism, environmental conditions (odour nuisance, air pollution, and especially hot weather), etc., they are all the physical factors provoking aggression of a mental space. In this field, the works of Leonard Berkowitz, William Griffitt, Russell Veitch, and others are considered most significant. For example: – Leonard Berkowitz carried out the experiments with the participation of the students of the University of Wisconsin. Consequently, he concluded that the most important cause of aggressive manifestations of a mental space was not so much frustration as aversive stimulation [Berkowitz, 1993]. – The experiments of William Griffitt and Russell Veitch showed that people became aggressive, vindictive and more hostile to a stranger in the heat. It was found that most of the acts of civil disobedience that occurred in US cities between 1967 and 1971 fell on hot days. In hot weather, the number of crimes committed with the use of violence increased [Berkowitz, 1993]. – Dane Archer and Rosemary Gartner compared homicide rates in many countries before and after their participation in the war. Whatever the outcome of the war, an increase in the level of murders in the post-war period was seen in most countries that were at war, not a decrease [Berkowitz, 1993]. Arlene Audergon [Audergon, 2008], Jesse Glenn Gray [Gray, 1998], Jonathan Shay [Shay, 1994], Gregory Fastovtsov, Olga Savina, Alexander Reznik [Fastovtsov et al., 2007], and others confirmed the existence of post-traumatic aggression as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder, especially among combatants. b) The social and psychological factors provoking aggression of a mental space. Reed Lawson, Leonard Berkowitz, Arnold Buss, John Dollard, Neal Miller and many others, in the course of numerous experiments and theoretical understanding, established various aspects and possibilities of the impact of the external environment on an awakening of aggression in a mental space. For example,

86

Chapter Four

– John Richters, Arnold Buss, Albert Bandura and others proved the provoking influence of the family on a child when cruelty and coarseness of the parents awaken aggression in a child toward peers and adults. – Albert Bandura, Ivan Ilyin and others opened up the opportunities of educational technologies provoking aggression among the rising generations of a mental space. – Leonard Berkowitz, George Gerbner, Sergey Kara-Murza and others opened up the opportunities provoking the mass media, etc. The provoking factors awaken reactive aggression in a mental space. Reactive aggression is hostile manifestations that occur in response to a real or perceived threat. Donald Winnicott, Kenneth A. Dodge, Karen O'Donnell, W. Benjamin Goodman, Jeannine Sato, and others have made a significant contribution to the understanding of the problem. Kenneth A. Dodge and others found that reactive aggression was characterized by the following features: – Inability to pay attention to relevant or alternative social cues; excessive vigilance in the expectation of hostile cues. – Misinterpretation of the intentions of another mental space, the hostile attributive distortion of the meaning of subtle or uncertain cues. – Limiting of the variants of behavior through aggressive problemsolving strategies. Dmitry Zhmurov believes that reactive aggression can be expressed in several forms of behavior [Zhmurov, 2011]: – Panic aggression: unfocused and indiscriminate destructive behavior that occurs under the influence of fear and anxiety, in a situation of human despair, feeling of “being cornered.” – Forced aggression: aggression occurring in extreme and desperate situations does not give the victim any choice, only to attack (kill, not to be killed). – Phantom aggression that occurs in response to the alleged danger signals (delusions, hallucinations). – Disproportionate or overactive aggression: the tendency to react with a powerful retaliatory “strike”, even at the slightest provocation.

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

87

– Punishment: it can be recognized by reactive aggression if it is guided by motives of revenge. – Affective (defensive, impulsive) aggression: active defensive behaviors. Thus, the provoking factors of the external environment (such as trauma, frustration, heat, overcrowding, environmental pollution, technologies influence, etc.) motivate a mental space to aggressive manifestations. § 42. Let us consider the fourth group of the external environmental factors that have a direct impact on aggressive manifestations of a mental space in ontogeny – the supporting factors. Among the factors supporting aggression, we highlight the following: a) The impact of psychoactive substances: cannabis (cannabinoids), cocaine, amphetamines, opiates (morphine, heroin, etc.), alcohol, hypnotic substances, nicotine, caffeine, etc., on the content and intensity of aggressive manifestations of a mental space. Maria Medina-Mora, Jorge Villatoro, Thomas F. Babor, Griffith Edwards and many other researchers admit the specific connection between abusing psychoactive substances and aggressive manifestations. Mental spaces, where the substanceabusing culture is supported, are potentially dangerous for the neighboring loci because they can cause aggression easily and unpredictably. The researchers tried to find the connection between the substance-abusing culture and manifestations of aggression, with the help of theoretical models of cognitive disintegration (e.g., the psychodynamic model of Stavros Mentzos). From these models, it follows that the influence of psychoactive substances can be manifested: – In the form of aggression directly at the moment of the effect of psychoactive substances. – Aggression in the period of abstinence syndrome. – Aggression against people who want to prevent the abuse of psychoactive substances. – Aggression because of deep personality changes, caused by prolonged use of psychoactive substances. b) An institutional impact that is initiated and supported by the social institutions. This problem was considered by Jesus Huerta de Soto, Stavros Mentzos, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, James D. Morrow, Akop

88

Chapter Four

Nazaretyan, Dmitry Zhmurov, and others. Institutional impact on a mental space is caused by various reasons such as the need to defend public order and the state ideology from the destructive factors; the need for (territorial) expansion and conquest of new resources; control over the masses, and others. Dmitry Zhmurov believes that a society with developed traditions of institutional impact-violence is characterized by the following features [Zhmurov, 2011]: – The totalitarian organization of political power, the formation of a single and charismatic centre of power (leaderism). – The widespread cultivation of violence, promotion of racial, cultural, ethnic intolerance. – The availability of the effective repressive apparatus (the police, the courts, the army and so on). – The approval and promotion of violence in the functioning of some social institutions (scientific, educational, recreational institutions). – The dualism of mass consciousness manifested in an effort to divide the world into “us” and “them.” c) Cultivation of violence as an encouragement, spreading, introduction of norms and sets connected with aggression into the public’s consciousness. George Gerbner, Larry Gross, Wilbur Schramm and many others took part in the creation of the cultivation theory. The theory reveals the particular impact of television and media on a mental space, not just as a factor of cultivation of violence, but also as a factor, which cultivates values of human rights, marriage, healthy lifestyles, education, etc. It should be noted that a pioneer in launching a long-term and large-scale campaign on the purposeful formation of public opinion through the media was Napoleon Bonaparte. As Klemens von Metternich wrote, newspapers for Napoleon were as valuable as three hundred thousand troops. Thus, it is not by chance that at the beginning of the 19th century, the number of French newspapers was reduced from 73 to 4, and the minister of police personally appointed the editors [Mandrahelya, 2003: 64]. The value of the cultivation theory is to identify and substantiate the cultivation process. The cultivation process occurs in two ways: mainstreaming and resonance. The mainstreaming process is seen in those who spend the most time in front of the TV. As a result, television’s

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

89

symbols become dominant and suppress other sources of information and ideas about the world. A mental space begins to perceive the world through the stereotypes imposed by TV programs, rather than reality. The resonance process of cultivation is carried out in cases when viewers see things on TV that are identical with their everyday reality. Essentially, these people get a “double dose” of cultivation, because what they see on TV resonates in their real lives. .

In the cultivation theory, violence is understood as imposing to a mental space the certain persuasion and sets, which in future may have an impact on its aggressive behavior. Such persuasion and sets include concrete forms and methods of implementing aggression, phobias, and prejudices of a criminal and cruel nature of social relationships, learning the role of the victim, racist views, etc. d) The creation of a subculture of aggression (autoregression) as the totality of material and spiritual values, which reflect the social importance of aggression or autoaggression for a particular group of people. Andrew Henry, James Short, Franco Ferracuti, Marvin E. Wolfgang, Leonard Berkowitz, and others, as a result of their research, came to the conclusion that there were subcultures of violence. That is, within separate mental spaces, and sometimes in the locus of civilization, the persuasion and norms are imposed and promoted, which teach how to interpret specific situations, and how to respond to them. Accordingly, the rising generation of a mental space, which grew up in the subculture and is more apt to aggression, are initially more aggressive. They classify controversial issues or other inter-ethnic conflicts as the provoking factors, to preserve its independence and respect; they need to respond only aggressively [Berkowitz, 1993]. Dmitry Zhmurov classifies the following characteristics to a subculture of aggression [Zhmurov, 2011]: – The value system that justifies and promotes violence. – The presence of negative authorities, calling for cruelty or leading by example through aggressive behavior. – The presence in the psychological context of aggressive subculture, important for an individual’s or group’s expectations, connected with the realization of its prescribed aggressive behavior (deontological expectations).

90

Chapter Four

– The presence of cultural products, embodying negative ideas, and broadcasting aggressive authorities’ worldview (literature, musical works, and others). e) The technologies of the formation of aggressive persuasion. Aggressive persuasion is a stable system of views (worldview element) that gives confidence to a part (or the whole) of a mental space in its hostile attitudes to the outside world; the persuasion that aggressive behavior is “correct”, adequate, and most preferred. The typical examples of aggressive persuasion are [Zhmurov, 2011]: – The persuasion that aggression is acceptable in social communication and violence can be fully justified from a moral point of view (the so-called principle of the moral permissibility of aggression). – The persuasion in the effectiveness of aggression as a way of solving a dispute or a situation of conflict. – The persuasion in the necessity of aggression, the need to respond with force against force, and to revenge for the “wrong” behavior. – The persuasion that there are certain mental spaces in which it is possible and sometimes necessary to behave aggressively. – The persuasion that there are certain social roles, the implementation of which is inconceivable without violence. – The persuasion that victims of violence are unworthy of sympathy and pity. Thus, psychoactive substances, institutional impact, cultivation of violence, the creation of a subculture of aggression, and technologies of formation of aggressive persuasion have a direct impact on aggressive manifestations of a mental space in ontogeny. § 43. Thus, often formalizing the directions of research works, sometimes just defining them, we have tried to convey the following: mental spaces manifest aggression because of the pathologies that are formed in the neural structures and functions of subconsciousness and consciousness as a result of the influence of the factors and causes of evolution, as well as the external environmental factors impacting on the manifestations of a mental space in ontogeny. By and large, we have established the first two groups of the causes of endless localisation of Earth’s space (the causes of war):

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

91

1. The accumulation of mentalities with the pathologies in the structure and functions of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness in mental spaces, which refract the natural active principle that, in aggressive manifestations, leads to war. 2. The physicochemical, predisposing, provoking and supporting factors of the external environment that have a direct impact on the manifestations of a mental space in ontogeny contribute to war. These factors not only promote the abnormal development of the brain functioning, but they also form the stereotypes of aggression and aggressive sets in other mentalities of a mental space. Based on the above, we can present our following interim conclusions: 1. The first group of the causes of endless localisation of Earth’s space (which corresponds to the first postulate of our theory) reveals the most significant regularity of complication of a mental space: with each generation, under the influence of the universal laws of evolution, in a mental space the percentage of mentalities with various deviations in the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness increases. Some of these deviations (we called them the pathologies) refract the natural active principle of a mental space in aggressive manifestations. Dinesh Bhugra, relying on numerous international research results, gives the following data: the percentage of patients with catatonia (a form of schizophrenia characterized by a tendency to remain in a fixed stuporous state for long periods) was diagnosed in 10 percent of cases in the developing countries compared with less than 1 percent in the developed countries. Hebephrenia (a form of schizophrenia characterized by severe disintegration of personality) was present in 13 percent of cases in the developed countries and 4 percent in the developing countries [Bhugra, 2005]. As noted in the article of Dinesh Bhugra, the difference in the percentage of incidents of hebephrenia in developed and developing countries is caused exclusively by the features of the disease at diagnosis. In developed countries, this issue receives much more attention, hence a higher percentage of diagnoses. Based on the above research results, we come to the following ratio: for example, the developing country (a mental space) with populations of 10 million people, in average consists of one million inhabitants with various pathologies in neurobiology that predispose to aggression. If we take into account that Dinesh Bhugra cited statistics only on the incidence of

92

Chapter Four

schizophrenia, and taking into account that the percentage of pathologies in the structure and functions of the brain in old age significantly increases, then the percentage of mentalities in a mental space, which are apt to aggression, is consistently high. If a mental space does not pay enough attention to this problem, then with each generation the percentage that is apt to aggression of mentalities increases. After 30–40 years of development, only at the expense of the accumulated mentalities with pathologies in mental space, the inclination of a mental space to aggression increases by 3–4 times! 2. The second group of the causes of endless localisation of Earth's space (the causes of war) reveals the other regularity of complication of a mental space: the external environmental factors in the manifestations of a mental space have a decisive role. They can decrease aggressive manifestations as much as they stimulate them. In the final chapters, we will give the examples of the geophilosophy of Europe, new generations of a mental space learn social sets and values imposed from outside and manifest the internal creative potentials being guided solely by the prevailing stereotypes of worldview. The outside world is the only possible medium for the formation, development, and self-realization of a mental space. Martin van Creveld wrote: “The uniqueness of the war consists in the fact that it has always been and remains the only creative activity that permits and requires an unlimited return of all human abilities, aimed against an opponent that is potentially as strong as man himself. It explains why throughout the history of humanity, a war was often considered as the last test of what man is worth, or, if it could be said, in other words, the judgment of God” [Creveld, 2005: 248]. The value orientation of a mentality and a mental space depends only on the external environmental factors. Under the influence of the predisposing, provoking and supporting factors of the external environment in a mentality and a mental space two opposing attitudes to war are formed. For example: “From the time of Homer, there was a belief that only those who willingly risked their lives, even joyfully, remained true to themselves for the rest of their lives. Real people.” [Creveld, 2005: 248] is one of many examples of the stereotype of aggression and aggressive sets; or else: “My pacifism is an instinctive feeling that possesses me because the murder of man is disgusting. My attitude is not derived from any intellectual theory, but is

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

93

based on my deepest antipathy to every kind of cruelty and hatred”9 [Frank, 1947] is an example of a negative attitude towards any form of aggressive manifestations10. § 44. At the end of the 19th century, the set of six volumes (in addition there was a volume of cartograms) of “The War of the Future in Its Technical, Economic and Political Relations” of a Russian banker, philanthropist, and scholar Ivan Bliokh11 was originally published in Russian, and later translated into five languages. In this monumental work within its epoch, the following conclusion reached by the authors seems to us the most important: due to the limited assimilative capacity of mental spaces, the conquest of the vast territories became impossible [Bliokh, 1898]. On a huge amount of research material Bliokh, with co-authors, showed that with complication of the neural ensemble of consciousness, the assimilative capabilities of mental spaces decline rapidly. A mental space begins to perceive a locus not only at the level of feelings and emotions but also consciousness, giving it specific, rational characteristics, even in the material and virtual worlds. A locus of civilization as a location of a mental space is transformed into the idea, or rather, the world of historical ideas in the understanding of Georg Wilhelm Hegel. It takes a full life in the Logosphere – in the material and the virtual worlds. A locus as an idea and a locus as a territory become incompatible with the importance and degree of influence on a mental space. Through the institution of the family, education, state ideology, a locus as an idea has a much more effective impact on the rising generations of a mental space. That is why, since the 20th century, it is incorrect to consider the occupation of the territory as victory in the war (as well as the loss of the territory as a defeat). It is nothing more than a formal change of loci borders in Earth’s space.

9

Recognition made by Albert Einstein to a group of Americans was in 1920 [Frank, 1947]. 10 Alternatively, a quote from the book of another Nobel laureate Svetlana Alexievich: “If a man has taken a weapon, he will not be kind. It will be impossible for him.” [Alexievich, 2016: 202]. 11 The book was published under the surname Bliokh, but historians have found that Bliokh had hired general staff officers and experts who wrote some of the chapters. Therefore, according to Vladimir Mandrahelya, it is more correct to attribute it not to one author, but a collective monograph headed by Ivan Bliokh [Mandrahelya, 2003].

94

Chapter Four

In fact, the loss of territory is only the beginning of war. With the loss of territory, the world of historical ideas is even more actualized and makes the factual assimilation of a mental space-victim in the world of historical ideas of a mental space-aggressor impossible12. A mental space-victim rejects the alien world of aggressor’s ideas, and continues to develop in the world of its national idea, maintaining and enriching it for itself and future generations. Having lost a territory, a mental space-victim moves its manifestations into the material and virtual worlds, into a locus as the world of historical ideas. For a mental space-victim, a locus as an idea becomes, like the real world, the occupied territory for a mental spaceaggressor. In a locus as an idea, a mental space-victim not only mobilises its potential and sends it to the liberation of a locus as a territory, but also a mental space-victim covers the so-called “Stockholm Syndrome” that is self-identification of the victim of aggression with the aggressor. For the first time, a Swedish psychiatrist and criminologist Nils Bejerot described “Stockholm Syndrome” in 1973. In our understanding, it is a defensive reaction, by which a mental space-victim attempts to survive acts like a mental space-aggressor. It is as if mimicking: the victim adopts the motives, values, sets and life positions of a mental space-aggressor. Therefore, with each year of occupation, with each new generation, a mental space-victim turns into a mental space-aggressor, exacerbating the struggle for its freedom and independence, deriving war from the format of the material and virtual manifestations in the real world: terrorism, military conflicts, violence and war. Perhaps for this reason, for a long time the popular thesis of Carl von Clausewitz that the war is “not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means” [Clausewitz, 2007: 25], in recent decades it is subjected to criticism. Mary Kaldor divided wars into “old” and “new”, and, using the wars in Bosnia and Herzegovina (6 April 1992 – 12 October 1995), Afghanistan (2001–2014) and Iraq (2003–2011) as examples, argued the fundamental differences between them [Kaldor, 2012]. A military historian Martin van Creveld showed remarkable inefficiency of war as an instrument of policy, with numerous examples [Creveld, 2005]. 12

In this regard, assessing the results of the First World War, in 1927 Harold Dwight Lasswell published the book, in which he wrote: “During the war, we had to make sure that the mobilization of people and resources was insufficient. It required the mobilization of opinions” [Lasswell, 1929: 31]

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

95

The American War in Vietnam, Israel’s war against Lebanon, the Russian Federation against Ukraine, and other examples clearly show that modern wars are, above all, wars for ideas. It is not the seizure of territories, and the successful imposition of their idea – that is where victory lies in the modern world. Hence, the third postulate: if in the perceptions of a mental space a locus from the geographical territory moves into the state of the world of historical ideas, it becomes sacramental and invincible. Modern Wars are a struggle of ideas. A mental space-aggressor may capture a geographical territory, possess material resources and impose its ideology. However, until then, the world of historical ideas of a mental space-victim is sacramental; until then, a mental space will be invincible. § 45. The third postulate helps to formulate the answer to the question: “Why does a mental space defend its locus from the penetration of other mental spaces, often at the expense of human life and destruction?” The willingness of a mental space to defend its locus depends on different reasons, but the main three are: 1. From the development of the historical and cultural potential of a mental space: history of relationships between a mental space and a locus. 2. From the development of the socio-political potential of a mental space. 3. From the development of the economic potential: natural resources, means of production, labour, scientific and technical potential, and the accumulated national wealth. The longer and fuller a mental space realizes its potentials in the locus, the more desperately it defends itself from violent and non-harmonized penetration. Between a mental space and a locus, specific, relatively close relationships are set, the essence of which Franz Brentano and Edmund Husserl laid in the concept of intentionality. A mental space as the totality of mentalities is not just constantly drawn to a locus as the place of the manifestation of internal creative potentials, and in its intentional experiences it comes to the state of mixing of ideal and real components of perceived (in Husserl’s terminology: “noesis” and “noema” [Husserl, 1999]). For a mental space, the occupied territory turns into Motherland – in the sacramental source of its existence, a complete identification of

96

Chapter Four

natural and artificial, personal and natural. In the 18th century Voltaire, Charles-Louis de Montesquieu, Julien de La Mettrie, Paul von Holbach and others had already written about a close relationship between a mental space and a locus. Georg Wilhelm Hegel brought the relations between a mental space and a locus to a new level of understanding. He discovered the possibility of converting a locus, as an actual geographical area, into the irrational world of historical ideas. The value of this world is immeasurably greater than the value of natural resource of a locus. Hegel was one of the first, who pointed out that the historical ideas that materialised in a locus are the actual presence of a mental space in the world. Therefore, an infringement upon them is equivalent to an assassination attempt on the fact of the existence of a mental space in the history of civilization. The same locus is quite differently perceived by a mental space-aggressor and a mental space-victim. A mental space-aggressor does not share its history with the occupied locus, i.e. the birth of the new and death of old generations, the past, present and future plans. A new territory is perceived by a mental space-aggressor no more than a geographical area, which value is measured by its natural wealth and resources, geographical location or possible manifestations of political ambitions. A mental spacevictim has quite a different attitude to the locus. For a mental space-victim, the territory is the object of intentional experiences, the world of historical ideas, and the most important component of its presence in the world. That is why, if we use the terminology of Carl von Clausewitz, an uncoordinated penetration of a mental space into another locus is “an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will”, that is a war [Clausewitz, 2007: 15], which “belongs necessarily also to the feelings” [Clausewitz, 2007: 16]. Thus, to protect the materialised creative potentials of past generations in the logosphere and technosphere, and to preserve the possibility of selfrealization in terms of national identity are the most important reasons for the selfless protection of its locus by a mental space. On this occasion, Vladimir Mandrahelya writes: “With certain reservations, one might even affirm that it is a war, during which the exertion of physical and moral strength, the ability to sacrifice, acquired the highest level and became an objective indicator of the maturity of the formation of a nation (in our understanding – a mental space)” [Mandrahelya, 2003: 81]. So long as a

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

97

mental space identifies itself with its world of historical ideas, it will continue to defend its locus from the penetration of other mental spaces, and at the expense of human life and destruction. The sacramentality of the world of historical ideas makes a mental space unbeaten. § 46. The third postulate, as well as understanding the significance for a mental space of the locus as the world of historical ideas, brings us to the understanding of the third cause of the endless localisation of Earth’s space (the causes of war). Before formulating it, it should be noted that taking into account the history of endless localisation of Earth’s space, quite often the borders of a locus as the world of historical ideas and loci as the geographic territory do not coincide. The territory of a locus of a mental space, for one reason or another, is less than the boundaries of the world of historical ideas, which are sacramental for a mental space. Defending its sacramental world of historical ideas, a mental space actually conflicts with the manifestations of another mental space that realizes its creative potentials within the boundaries of this territory. Hence, it follows the understanding of the limitrophe states: being independent mental spaces, the limitrophe states actually enter the world of historical ideas of another mental space. The conflict between the sacramental worlds of historical ideas, competing for the same territory, is the third cause of the endless localisation of Earth’s space. We formulate it as follows: the borders of a locus as the world of historical ideas often extend beyond a locus as the territory and come into conflict with the ideas that were originated by another mental space at the scale of this territory. It turns out that the sacramental worlds of historical ideas of the several mental spaces compete for the same locus, as a territory. § 47. A mental space may be a victim of aggression, for various reasons: objective or subjective. The objective reasons include the weakness of the political, economic, social, scientific and other organizations in comparison with the aggressor; the incompatibility of human resources, armament, combat experience; natural resource wealth and unwillingness to defend them, etc. The subjective reasons are different factors provoking a mental space-aggressor; unfounded by objective indicators such as political independence of a mental space-victim; different value orientations; conflicts on ethnic or religious grounds, and others.

98

Chapter Four

In relation to a mental space-victim, a mental space-aggressor uses the following means of influence: – The psychological pressure: threats, intimidation, humiliation, instilling a feeling of guilt. – Information attacks. – An economic blockade. – Progressive political and social isolation. – Cultural aggression – the destruction of cultural objects: language, art, science, politics, monuments, symbols of faith. – Military action and others13. At the beginning of the 20th century, the German historian Hans Delbrück, developing the ideas of Carl von Clausewitz, proved that there were two main forms of warfare: Niederwerfungs-Strategie – the strategy of annihilation, and Ermattungs-Strategie – the strategy of attrition. However, what Delbrück directly attributed to a battle on the battlefield, starting with the 20th century, has passed to the material and virtual worlds. The war in the modern sense is a strategy of annihilation and attrition of the enemy as in battle, as in the information space. Not only win on the battlefield, it is just a situational victory over a small part of a mental space. It is important to win in the information war – to destroy the significance of the world of historical ideas, in which a mental spacevictim protects its identification markers, and with which it positions its presence in the world. The urgency of bloody battles faded into the background because the victory in the battle instead of the total victory over a mental space-victim began to lead to a permanent war, a partisan movement, an international pressure, etc. The victory in the battle actualizes the world of historical ideas of a mental space-victim, and in the wave of patriotism, it rallied mass support against a mental spaceaggressor. The wars in Korea, Vietnam, Ukraine and other places demonstrate that the forcible seizure of a territory and the destruction of warriors actualize the world of historical ideas, and the whole mental space rises against the aggressor: old men, women, and children. Not only 13

In 1927, Harold Dwight Lasswell wrote that there were three main weapons against the enemy: (1) Military coercion – i.e., the action of the country by the armed forces – land, sea, or air; (2) Economic Pressure – i.e., the prevention of enemies from its increasing resources, the expansion of its markets and the inflow of capital and labour; (3) Propaganda – that is, the direct indoctrination [Lasswell,1929: 28].

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

99

the army begins to resist the aggressor, but also the whole population, through which the distinction between military and civilian people is completely erased. In the current realities, the conquest of territories and assimilation of their populations became unreal. The only possible way of conquering a mental space-victim is a victory in the information war. For the first time, the characteristics and capabilities of the information war were investigated by Walter Lippmann [Lippman, 2004]; Harold Lasswell [Lasswell, 1929]; Jacques Ellul [Ellul, 2003]; Sergey Kara-Murza [Kara-Murza, 2000]; Igor Panarin [Panarin, 2006]; Vladimir Tsyganov and Sergei Bukharin [Tsyganov & Bukharin, 2007]; and others. The striking efficiency of the information war, was achieved for the first time thanks to the ideas and practice of Joseph Goebbels [Thacker, 2009]. However, in order to understand the origins of the efficiency of the information war and the degree of its influence on endless localisation of Earth’s space, in our opinion it should refer to the book “On Resistance to Evil by Force” written in 1925 in Berlin by Ivan Ilyin [Ilyin, 1993]. In the early 20th century, in controversy with the teaching of “Non-violence” by Lev Tolstoy, Ivan Ilyin largely anticipated the “sunset” of the war in the understanding of Carl von Clausewitz and the “dawn” of the information war. Drawing a distinction between the concepts of “violence” and “coercion”, Ilyin actually shows the difference between the understanding of the war of Carl von Clausewitz and Lippman-Ellul-Goebbels [Ilyin, 1993]. What is the ingenious enlightenment of Ivan Ilyin in? Ivan Ilyin, Pitirim Sorokin, Nikolai Berdyaev as well as some other Russian thinkers, which were forced to leave Russia after the Bolsheviks came to power in October 1917, belonged to a different culture, which was very different from the European culture, which the Russians were forced to accept14. The cultural difference of the Russians was very subtle, Herbert Marshall McLuhan noticed. In his terminology, this is equivalent to the difference between oral and print culture. According to McLuhan, the oral culture is characterized by emotionality, the variety of sensations and emotions. 14 In 1922, on the orders of Vladimir Lenin, Ivan Ilyin, Pitirim Sorokin, Berdyaev, along with other 160 prominent philosophers, historians and economists were forcibly expelled from Russia on the so-called “Philosophical Boat.”

100

Chapter Four

Print culture is characterized by exceptional coldness, monotony emotions, and narrow spectrum [McLuhan, 1962]. Therefore, the culture of Russian people is emotionality of an oral world, which is opposed to coldness, rationality, and pragmatism of the written culture of Western civilization. Sorokin and Ilyin understood this difference much earlier than McLuhan did, so in their works, they pointed to the vulnerability of a mentality from the information space much sooner than their Western colleagues did. If Sorokin considered a mentality as the basis of any social community, and through the methodology available to him, he tried to trace the features of the transition of mentalities in the state of a social society perceived by rational thinking [Sorokin, 1992], then Ilin drew his attention to the following. As a patriot of Imperial Russia, a member of the White movement that lost the battle to the divisions of the Red Army, Ilyin, one of the first, understood that the war was not so much a fight on the battlefield, the war is a battle for the minds of men, the idea. That is why, drawing a distinction between the concepts of “violence” and “coercion”, Ilyin showed that a military victory was often a “Pyrrhic victory” because it was associated with violence. By violence, one can change the boundaries of a locus of civilization, by violence, one can force a particular mental space to follow certain rules of conduct and can cause temporary emotional states – fear, horror, phobia, fright, but all of these are no more than the impact on the external manifestation of a mental space. By an influence exerted on a mentality, violence will never be compared with coercion, i.e. with the internal condition that every mentality takes consciously, which is rooted in subconsciousness and forms the value orientation of an individual mentality and whole generations of mental spaces. It is here, in influencing the individual paradigm (mental sets) and personal sensory and emotional states; the true key to victory over a mental space-victim is hidden. The impact on a mentality is equivalent to the impact on a rhizome of the locus, the deeper and longer this influence is, the more stable new stereotypes and sets laid down by propaganda are. The power of the information war and its technology included in the focus on a mentality, on the worldview sets and value orientations in the rising and older generations. The information war provides bloodless break-ups and unions of loci of civilization. The manipulation by a sensitive and emotional state of a mentality and consciousness is the most efficient weapon of a war, which leads not to temporary changes in the boundaries of loci of civilization, but to more stable and robust ones, because endless localisation is carried out no longer on the surface, but in the rhizome.

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

101

The modern technologies of information warfare are such that separate mental spaces, even unaware of external aggression, independently and consciously (!) change the course of the history of their loci. They lose battles and follow the will of the winner not on the battlefield, but by refusing the key sets of their world of historical ideas, the history of the locus, changing national identity criteria. Taking into account the difference between “violence” and “coercion” (from Ivan Ilyin’s ideas), our fourth postulate follows: the collapse and integration of loci of civilization are directly connected with actualization and de-actualization of the world of historical ideas. § 48. The fourth cause of the endless localisation of Earth’s space (the cause of the war) follows from the fourth postulate: de-actualization of the world of historical ideas, around which the multi-ethnic structure of a mental space is united, leads to actualization of the world of historical ideas of the national minorities – internal ethnic conflicts, civil war, and the collapse of a mental space. The vast majority of currently existing countries is multi-ethnic societies. That is, the formal boundaries of loci of civilization include compulsorily or voluntarily affiliated geographical territories with their indigenous, or brought up in the national cultural traditions of a locus, population. Gathered together at different times, in fact, all of them are potential mental space-victims, which turn to their historical memory, if necessary, to revive the world of historical ideas and demand freedom and independence (or other political, economic or social preferences) from the “political centre.” Formally, staying within the boundaries of the locus, in fact, these territories are the causes of covert wars in various formats and intensity and, consequently, the cause of the endless localisation of Earth’s space. Ideally, ethnically a homogeneous mental space must belong to one locus. However, the history of humanity began with the nomadic tribes. Over millions of years, ethnic groups were mixed, changed their locations, and redrew their borders15. Even today, the migration continues to be massive and changes the ratio of nationalities in loci of civilization. For example, 15

In this regard, it is noteworthy the research of Ernst Georg Ravenstein, Lev Gumilyov, Adolphe Landry, Alfred Sauvy, Frank W. Notestein and others.

102

Chapter Four

tens of thousands of Ukrainians, because of the war in the Donbas, immigrated to Poland, hundreds of thousands of Syrians to European countries, etc. According to David Welch, currently, ethnically homogeneous loci of civilization account for less than 5 percent of the total number of existing states [Welsh, 1993]. Sujit Choudhry was even more categorical: “the era of homogeneous ethnocultural states was over” [Choudhry, 2008]. This homogeneity of a mental state does not guarantee the peace and harmony in the locus. This fact was pointed out in the studies of Georges Bataille, Gabriel A. Almond, Carl Schmitt, Arend Lijphart, James Buchanan Jr., and others. In our opinion, the stability of a mental space is more concerned with the stability and relevance of the world of historical ideas, which unites the nations and their manifestations. The ethnic component of a mental space plays an important role, but in order of importance, it has lower influence than the world of historical ideas. As soon as the relevance of the world of historical ideas is reduced, the ethnic heterogeneity of a mental space starts to manifest itself. The loss of the national idea, uniting a multiethnic locus of civilization, dooms it to a new civil war and redrawing of its borders.

4.3 The causes of the endless localisation of Earth’s space, or otherwise – the causes of peace § 49. The causes of the endless localisation of Earth’s space are not only the manifestations of aggression in the form of conflicts, violence, and wars, but also the desire for peace. The fifth postulate of the theory of war and peace is formulated as follows: the nature of a mental space inclines continuously and nonlinearly to create the most comfortable conditions for the full realization of the internal creative potentials. Mutually beneficial integration and co-operation both between mentalities within a mental space and between mental spaces in Earth’s space are comfortable conditions to which a mental space seeks under the influence of the factors and causes of evolution. Various empirical and theoretical bases that reveal the structure and functional features of modern societies is a consequence of the manifestations of the fifth postulate. Many works were devoted to the consideration of this issue, e.g. David Emile Durkheim, Talcott Parsons, Robert King Merton, Neil J. Smelser, Edward Shils, Pierre Bourdieu, Thomas Luckmann and others. The review of sociological theories, in

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

103

which the fifth postulate reveals itself, is given in the book of Hans Joas and Wolfgang Knöbl [Joas & Knɺbel, 2011]. In modern sociological theories, an approach to society as existing in the social space and time “blob” of social relations and interactions between people was established. The main characteristics of this “blob” are called: integrity, hierarchy, implementation, openness, informativeness, selfdetermination, and self-organization (for example, Pierre Bourdieu, Thomas Luckmann, etc.)16. If we compare these characteristics with the universal factors of evolution, which we took as the second axiom (§ 16), we will find their striking similarity. A mental space seeks to achieve the most comfortable conditions for the full realization of the internal creative potentials, relying on its inner nature, organized by the universal factors and causes of evolution. To expand the scale of the manifestations of the internal creative potentials and material, energy, and information capabilities of its locus, continuously and nonlinearly a complicating mental space has a limited set of ways: war or peace. In 1898, Ivan Bliokh explained that war is not the best choice [Bliokh, 1898]. For a mental space-aggressor as well as for a mental space-victim, years of war and post-war years are periods of destruction, loss of human life, and rethinking. The war kills, as a rule, the most active, motivated personalities in a society – the nation’s potential leaders. Years of war for both mental spaces are akin to a strong nervous tension, as a result of which, on the one hand, the highest point reaches: motivation, a sense of purpose, desire to act energetically, take satisfaction from struggle, risk, and danger. Difficulties, hardships and privations were taken for granted. However, on the other hand, a mental space weakens, it may find itself physically and mentally fatigued, and there is a possibility of depression, weakness, and indifference. In psychology, these states are called stress and distress. Walter Cannon, Hans Hugo Selye, Bernard Goldstone, John Burdon Haldane, Leonid Kitaev-Smyk, and others investigated dynamics of changes of the manifestations of a mental space in periods of stress and distress. A state of peace as a way to expand the capabilities of the locus to meet the needs of a mental space is a more convenient and comfortable option 16

A large-scale analysis of social theories was held in the book of Hans Joas and Wolfgang Knɺbel [Joas & Knɺbel, 2011].

104

Chapter Four

for a mental space. Through the peaceful expansion of the locus capabilities, mutually beneficial integration and cooperation of mental spaces and their manifestations occur. Perhaps, if it were not regular deviations in the structure of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness caused by the complication of mental spaces, the state of peace would remain dominant in the relationship between mental spaces. However, the nature has created an alternative environment that continuously generates competition between mental spaces, and the search for new versions of peace. § 50. The fifth postulate reveals the latest fifth cause of endless localisation of Earth’s space – the cause of peace. We can formulate it as follows: the comfortable condition for the full realization of its internal creative potentials by a mental space, it is a condition of integration and cooperation with the minimum risk to itself and its manifestations. That is why mental spaces seek various forms of peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial collaboration. The manifestations of the fifth cause of endless localisation can be seen from the features of the history in the organization of societies to the understanding of the causes of the creation of various alliances (blocs, coalitions). From our point of view, the desire of mental spaces to the integration and harmonisation of interests led to the emergence and development of special bodies intended for self-realization and selfreproduction of the society – the social institutions of family, marriage, education, religion, and others. These artificially created social structures greatly facilitated the unification of mentalities and mental spaces around new ideas, goals, and interests (i.e. supra individual being). As a particular form of collective organization, the social institutions have simplified the integration of different content and meaning worlds of historical ideas around continuously generated and correlated ideas of a more general nature. § 51. In concluding the consideration of the causes of the endless localisation of Earth’s space, we cannot ignore the significant impact on the process of mentality-leaders. This issue is widely represented in scientific literature. For example, the works of Niccolo Machiavell, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Max Weber, Sigmund Freud, Pierre Renouvin, Erich Fromm, Talcott Parsons, Ronald Heifetz, Theodor Adorno, Abraham Maslow, Donelson R. Forsyth, Ronald E. Riggio, Sergei Rubinstein, Igor Kohn et al. Among the works on this subject, we

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

105

highlight the books of Larry A. Hjelle and Daniel J. Ziegler [Hjelle & Ziegler, 1999], Valentin Rybalka [Rybalka, 2015], and others. From these studies, we highlight the most important for us: 1. When we talk about a mental space, we need to understand that we are talking not about chaotic organization, but about a system that has a strictly hierarchical structure. One of the universal factors of evolution, which we took as the second axiom, directly indicates that the complication of any mental space is performed nonlinearly as a directed and hierarchical process. Therefore, any mental space is a hierarchical system with their leaders and performers. 2. Any hierarchical system vests the representatives of different hierarchical levels with certain capabilities and powers. Therefore, the direction of complication of a mental space and its manifestations in a locus of civilization and beyond of it depends on a large extent of the mentality-leaders (so-called “ruling elite”) and powers that they have. The more powers the mentality-leaders have in a mental space, the more a mental space depends on the direction of their creative potentials. 3. As shown by numerous research (for example, Sigmund Freud [Freud, 1922], Theodor Adorno [Adorno, 2001], Erich Fromm [Fromm, 1994], and others), the attitude of the mentality-leaders to aggression or peaceful coexistence predisposes largely the manifestations of the whole mental space. Leaders encourage aggressive manifestations and a mental space turns into a mental space-aggressor, or the mentality-leaders choose integration and cooperation, and a mental space maintains good neighborly relations.

4.4 The theory of war and peace. The main assertions § 52. Having considered the causes of endless localization of Earth’s space, we have come close to the creation of the theory of war and peace, which, according to the objectives that we have set ourselves, is to explain why some complicating mental spaces remain in their loci, while others are seeking to extend their influence on the nearby and remote loci of civilizations. Let us go over the components of the theory of war and peace again:

106

Chapter Four

1. The empirical basis of the theory of war and peace is formed: a) The facts and regularities from the field of neurosciences, psychology, and social philosophy. b) The facts and regularities from the field of geophilosophy. c) The facts and regularities from the field of military history and the art of war. 2. The basis of the theory of war and peace is formed by two axioms and five postulates. The first axiom: separate loci of civilization and man have a common rhizome – an evolving mentality. The second axiom: evolution is a continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments that are carried out under the impact of the three factors and two universal causes for any material organization at the scales of the universe. Hence, complication of a mental space is carried out: a) Continuously, by blocks and according to the principle of dominance. b) Nonlinearly, as a directed and hierarchical process. c) Depending on the spatial, temporal, and reproductive isolation. d) Influenced by the active principle that was initially laid in the neural structures of a mental space. e) The conditions of natural selection. The first postulate: a rhizome of aggressive manifestations of a mental space includes the pathologies, which are formed because of continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure and functions of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness. The second postulate: the physicochemical, predisposing, provoking and supporting factors of the external environment have a direct impact on the aggressive manifestations of a mental space. The third postulate: if in the perceptions of a mental space a locus from the geographical territory moves into the state of the world of historical ideas, it becomes sacramental and invincible. Modern Wars are a struggle of ideas.

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

107

The fourth postulate: the collapse and integration of loci of civilization are directly connected with actualization and de-actualization of the world of historical ideas. The fifth postulate: the nature of a mental space inclines continuously and nonlinearly to create the most comfortable conditions for the full realization of the internal creative potentials. 3. The methodological basis of the theory of war and peace is the expanded methodology of geophilosophy that includes political philosophy, culturology, ethnology, economics and geography in addition to the classical methods, and the methods of neuroscience, psychology, and social philosophy. Based on the components of the theory, we formulate the theory of war and peace: Evolution of a mental space is the history of its manifestations in the locus and beyond. The basis of evolution of a mental space and its manifestations is continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure and functions of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness, as well as continuous and nonlinear complication of the physicochemical, predisposing, provoking and supporting external environmental factors. Complication of a mental space is caused by the universal factors and causes of evolution. War and peace in continuous and nonlinear complication are the manifestations of a mental space by which a regulatory compromise between opposing forces is achieved: the active principle and natural selection (or the complicating structure of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness, and the external environmental conditions). War and peace are the ways to reach a compromise between the complicated needs of a mental space and the possibilities of their satisfaction, between a proclaimed idea that unites a mental space, and the possibility of its realization. The concept of homeostasis in the classic sense of Walter Cannon is as the ability of an open system to maintain the constancy of its internal state through coordinated reactions designed to maintain the dynamic equilibrium, identical to the concept of the regulatory compromise, but it has a narrower field of application. War and Peace are coordinated reactions aimed at maintaining homeostasis of a mental space of the Earth.

108

Chapter Four

§ 53. We formulate the basic assertions that follow from the theory of war and peace: 1. Endless localisation of Earth’s space is a natural process based on the universal factors and causes of evolution. This means that the endless localisation of Earth’s space accompanied, accompanies and will accompany Earth’s civilization throughout its existence. 2. With complication of the structure and functions of ɚ mental space, its manifestations are also complicated, including the ways of war and achieving peace. Therefore, the attitude to war and peace, their resource support (political, social, economic, scientific, ideological, and military) directly depends on the degree of perfection of a mental space and its manifestations. 3. War and peace are two basic ways of expanding possibilities of a locus of civilization. For continuous and nonlinear complication of the internal structure and its manifestations, a mental space often lacks material, labour, energy, and information capabilities of its locus. To solve this problem, a mental space starts a war or takes advantage of peace. 4. Aggression of a mental space has a tendency to increase sharply with the growing possibilities of its application. The fourth assertion of the theory of war and peace follows from the experiments of Stanley Milgram, Robert A. Baron17, Philip George Zimbardo, and others. The experiments and conclusions of Milgram, Baron, Zimbardo, and others reveal the meaning of the Romans’ idea that was concentrated in the famous phrase, the authorship of which is attributed to the Roman historian Cornelius Nepos: Si vis pacem, para bellum (lat. “If you wish for peace, prepare for war”). The impunity of aggression increases aggressive manifestations of a mental space. 5. The role of a leader in the choice by a mental space of war or peace is determinative. The more powers in the management of a mental space mentality-leaders have, the more dependence on the development of a mental space concerning the direction of their creative potentials.

17

The significance and consequences of the experiments were described, for example, by Lars Fr. Svendsen [Svendsen, 2008].

The Causes of Endless Localisation of Earth’s Space

109

Conclusion of chapter four § 54. Thus, in chapter four, we have answered the following questions: 1. Based on the methodology of geophilosophy, we have formulated the definition of war and peace. War is a violent penetration of one mental space into a locus of another mental space, which entails substantial changes in its manifestations. Peace is a coordinated interaction between mental spaces that leads at a minimum to respect, at a maximum to the multiplication of the manifestations of each other. 2. We have established the causes of the endless localisation of Earth’s space. They were the causes of war and peace: a) The accumulation of mentalities with the pathologies in the structure and functions of the neural ensembles of subconscious and consciousness in mental spaces, which refract the natural active principle in aggressive manifestations and lead to war. b) The physicochemical, predisposing, provoking and supporting factors of the external environment that have a direct impact on the manifestations of a mental space in ontogeny contribute to war. These factors not only promote the abnormal development of brain functioning, but they also form the stereotypes of aggression and aggressive sets in other mentalities of a mental space. c) The borders of a locus as the world of historical ideas often extend beyond a locus as a territory and come into conflict with the ideas that were originated by another mental space at the scale of this territory. It turns out that the sacramental worlds of historical ideas of the several mental spaces compete for the same locus, like a territory. d) De-actualization of the world of historical ideas, around which the multi-ethnic structure of a mental space is united, leads to actualization of the world of historical ideas of the national minorities – internal ethnic conflicts, civil war, and the collapse of a mental space. e) The comfortable condition for the full realization of its internal creative potentials by a mental space is a condition of integration and cooperation with the minimum risk to itself and its manifestations. That is why mental spaces seek for various forms of peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial collaboration.

110

Chapter Four

3. We have formulated the theory of war and peace, as well as its basic assertions. The theory of war and peace is as follows: war and peace in continuous and nonlinear complication of the universe are the manifestations of a mental space by which a regulatory compromise between opposing forces is achieved: the active principle and natural selection (or a complicating structure of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness and the environmental conditions). War and peace are the ways to reach a compromise between the complicating needs of a mental space and the possibilities of their satisfaction, between a proclaimed idea that unites a mental space, and the possibility of its realization. We formulate the basic assertions that follow from the theory of war and peace: a) Endless localisation of Earth’s space is a natural process based on the universal factors and causes of evolution. b) With complication of the structure and functions of a mental space, its manifestations are also complicated, including the ways of war and achieving peace. c) War and peace are two basic ways of expanding possibilities of a locus of civilization. d) Aggression of a mental space has a tendency to increase sharply with the growing possibilities of its application. e) The role of a leader in the choice by a mental space of war or peace is determinative.

CHAPTER FIVE THE PHILOSOPHY OF WAR AND PEACE

§ 55. On December 12 2009, in Moscow, Sir Michael Barber, who was involved in reforms in the UK education system (1997–2007), revealing the link between education and war, said the following: “Today, the award to you of a degree is recognition of an opportunity seized. Tomorrow, after the party you have surely earned, perhaps, along with me, you can ask yourselves “How does my life help to remove the causes of war?” If that question informed our education systems and drove the actions of ever growing numbers of people around the world, then your children and grandchildren, and my grandson Jacob, would have every hope of a future of fulfilment. Then, at the very least, in the words of the famous song, “I swear in the days still left, we will walk in fields of gold” [Barber, 2009]. The question: “How does my life help to remove the causes of war?” acquires particular relevance today in the world, which Jean Baudrillard has called “the era of terrorism and military pandemic” [Baudrillard, 2016: 7]. Trying to find answers is very important not to feel some excessive partiality like “cabinet members” to authoritarian methods, on which Henri-Benjamin Constant de Rebecque, Bertrand de Jouvenel, and others drew attention [Jouvenel, 2011]. The proposed theory of war and peace by the author, as well as its philosophical comprehension, is one of the answers to the question: “How does my life help to remove the causes of war?”

5.1 Comprehension of war and peace in Plato’s line § 56. At the beginning of our research, we explored the difference between the two major traditions in the history of culture: the lines of Plato and Democritus. It is not a conventional but conditional division. It was offered and argued by the Soviet scientist Alexander Lyubishchev in the second half of the 20th century [Lyubishchev, 2000]. The author believes that two main traditions in knowing of the world proceed from this division, they are clearly observed in the history of philosophy and

112

Chapter Five

science. Thus, the researchers, who adhere to Plato’s line (first tradition), build their thinking constructions (ideas, hypotheses, concepts, theories, etc.) in close connection with the fundamental principles of being, referring to the origins of the formation and development of the universe, life, and man. Given the complexity and lack of disclosure of basis, in this tradition of knowing the world, the general entities, categories, structures, and regularities are dominant. As for the Platonic tradition of knowing, the scope and depth of the expressed idea are essential, the value of which highlights the flow of being in its entirety and length more fully the higher it is. The second tradition of knowing of the world is focused on considering specific manifestations of reality, the information about which one can collect, update, organise, analyse, and synthesise. As for this tradition of knowing, momentary effect, practical benefit, the possibilities for using the research findings in everyday life are important. Alexander Lyubishchev believes that the second tradition of knowing of the world (which originated from Democritus’ studies) is a dead-end; because the basis of any thinking construction, which aims for pragmatism, effectiveness and usefulness is built of fragments of the manifestations of being, that in secondary judgments were taken out of the context of deeper thoughts. Therefore, like any pattern, assembled in a mosaic from stones, this construction is temporary and relative, because anyone can assemble these fragments at one's discretion and see “newness” in the assembled pattern. Fragments torn from the length of being lose their value. From fragments of a broken cup that was full of tea, one cannot restore the original state of being, at least for the reason that tea spilt upon the floor “cannot be returned...” § 57. We have built the ontology of war and peace on the basis of the scientific and philosophical theoretical model “Evolving matter”, which purports to be a disclosure of the basics of being [Bazaluk, 2016]. In this model, the features of continuous and nonlinear complication of matter from a space vacuum state to genes, and from genes to the neural ensembles were disclosed. Based on the model of evolution that has been taken by us as a basis, we reach a number of important ontological conclusions:

The Philosophy of War and Peace

113

1. The universe, biological life and civilization perceived by man are the external manifestations of the fundamental processes that occur at the level of elementary particles, genes, and neurones1. 2. The universe, biological life, and social systems are becoming complicated under the influence of the universal factors and the causes of evolution. Therefore, despite the perceived differences in structure and functions, the universe, biological life, and civilization obey the general fundamental principles of being, making them the elements of one system. 3. The ontology of human being is a continuous and nonlinear complication of a mentality2 and its quantity – a mental space. A mentality and a mental space realise their internal creative potentials through the material and virtual products, using the possibilities of the logosphere and technosphere. A mental space (as the nth quantity of mentalities) and the diversity of its manifestations on a geographical or virtual territory form a locus of civilization. Thus, the author believes that man and human society are a continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure and functions of a separate mentality and its quantity (mental spaces), as well as the ways of the manifestations of their internal creative potentials in the material and virtual worlds. That is why Plato’s line in comprehension of the problem of war and peace refers neither to neurosciences and psychology, nor “psychologization” of the problem (with negative connotations, which are put in the concept of “psychologization” by the majority of philosophers, political scientists, sociologists, historians, and others), and its study in the ontological primogeniture - in the space of continuous and nonlinear complication of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness, 1

In the terminology of the author, the basis of Inert, Living and Intelligent Matter is a space vacuum, molecular-genetic space, and space of continuous and nonlinear complication of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness [Bazaluk, 2016]. 2 Let us clarify the terminology. Under a mentality, the author understands not just the brain, as the main organ that serves as the center of the nervous system of the overwhelming majority of chordates, and mainly, as complication of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness, which, in the author’s opinion, are formed and developed only in the human brain, and make the human brain (anatomical, morphological, functional) fundamentally different to the brain of other vertebrates [Bazaluk, 2016].

114

Chapter Five

which is also put in the space of the Earth’s biosphere and the universe. It is for this reason that complication of the structure and functions of a mentality and a mental space, as well as the features of their manifestations, are directly dependent on the activity of the biosphere and the Cosmos.

5.2 The theory of war and peace in philosophical comprehension § 58. In chapter four, considering the causes of endless localisation of Earth’s space, it is hard not to pay attention to a match between the ideas that formed the basis of the theory of good and evil, international relations, historical and literary concepts (e.g., § 9), and the results of research in neurosciences. This is explained by many modern “theories” in humanitarian disciplines that are built on the “pieces” (or fragments) of research in neurosciences. Moreover, as far as the discovery and systematisation of knowledge in neurophilosophy go, the refinement of “theories” of international relations, etc. take place. Let us consider the four most important and fundamental correlations of ideas in humanitarian disciplines and neurophilosophy for our research: 1. “The unity of the nature of good and evil” in Plato and neurophilosophy. 2. “War is a necessity of the world” in Cicero and Hegel and the fifth postulate of the theory of war and peace. 3. “Equilibrium (the balance of power)” and a “regulatory compromise.” 4. “The role of the ruler’s personality in the destiny of the state” and the fifth assertion of the theory of war and peace. § 59. Let us consider the first correlation of the idea of “the unity of nature of good and evil” in Plato and neurophilosophy. In § 3, we pointed out that about 360 BC, in the treatise “Timaeus,” Plato formulated the idea of the unity of nature of good and evil. In less than two and a half thousand years, this idea turned into a stable frame of reference (worldview) that allows modern generations to see humanity, the Earth and the Cosmos as the parts of the whole, and to build the social system according to law. In our proposed theory of war and peace, Plato’s idea becomes a theoretical basis. In § 36, considering the nature of aggression of a mental

The Philosophy of War and Peace

115

space, we discover that the regulatory-evaluative categories of good and evil are nothing but the manifestation of the active principle, which at the scale of the Earth’s mental space has a common (unified) origin. The difference between good and evil, as the manifestations between a mentality and a mental space, begins to be observed in ontogeny, according to the development of the structure and functions of the brain. Overwhelmingly, the formation and development of the structure and functions of the brain are carried out within a little deviation. It provides the direction and sequence of complication of a mental space, and also promotes the continuity and predictability of the manifestations of a mental space in a locus of civilization. The active principle embodied in socially important products of labour, in most cases, is evaluated by the category of good. However, in other cases, deviations in the development of the structure and functions of the brain lead to uncontrolled, aggressive, excessive emotional reactions of the brain to the stimuli. The active principle, influencing destructively the development of a locus of civilization, is often evaluated by the category of evil. Thus, in neurophilosophy Plato’s idea is regarded as a theoretical model, which links “good” and “evil” with changes in the structure and functions of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness. Moreover, most of the changes that occur in a continuous and nonlinear complicating brain increase the quality of the manifestations of a mental space in a locus of civilization, i.e., potentially it serves the “good.” Only a small part (e.g., according to Dinesh Bhugra up to 1 percent [Bhugra, 2005]) leads to the manifestation of “evil.” Currently, neuroscientists have made progress toward understanding the nature of “evil”: 1. They have established pathologies in brain structures that lead to the manifestation of aggression. 2. They have identified the features of the destructive influence of the environment on the formation of the stereotypes of aggression and aggressive sets (§ 36). 3. They create methodologies that allow predictions of the manifestations of “good” and “evil” in a mental space.

116

Chapter Five

4. They develop the methods and ways to limit the manifestations of “evil”3. § 60. Let us consider the correlation between the idea of “War is a necessity of the world”, which was first formulated by Marcus Tullius Cicero4 in the year 44 BC, and the fifth postulate of the theory of war and peace that “the nature of a mental space inclines continuously and nonlinearly to create the most comfortable conditions for the full realization of internal creative potentials” (§ 49). While working on the book, the author felt difficulties in making his priorities regarding the title of the book: “The Theory of War and Peace” or “The Theory of Peace and War?” After reading literature on this issue and comprehending the problem, the author came to the understanding that this question hides the whole problem that is not less important than the problem of war and peace. This problem can be formulated as follows: what is the role of the philosophy of war in the philosophy of peace? In modern scientific literature, there is no discussion about the priority: the philosophy of war in the philosophy of peace, or the philosophy of peace in the philosophy of war. The vast majority of scientists and researchers on this issue have not questioned the setting, which was first formulated by Plotinus about 1,800 years ago, “evil as a falling short of good” [Plotinus, 1967: 61]. For this reason, in the modern understanding of the world, “peace” is the continuously and nonlinearly complicating universe, and “evil” is the processes that break the harmony of the universe and are not comprehended by the mind of man. Professional researchers on the problem of war and peace a priori recognize that the formulation of the question “the philosophy of peace in the philosophy of war” is essentially illogical because it has neither an empirical nor theoretical basis. They care about the other question: “What is the significance of the philosophy of war in the philosophy of peace?” Therefore, the author called the book “The Theory of War and Peace”, which is equivalent to the definition of the role of war in the philosophy of peace. What is a war for peace, and to

3 4

For example, the research of Dinesh Bhugra [Bhugra, 2005], and others. The development of this idea, we have considered in § 5 and § 6.

The Philosophy of War and Peace

117

what extent it is important for intelligent matter of the Earth5, which, at the scale of the universe, is human society? In their time Marcus Tullius Cicero, Georg Wilhelm Hegel, Friedrich von Schelling, and many others claimed: “War has the higher significance” [Hegel, 1990: 361], or “If there is no struggle, there is no life” [Hoffmeister, 2006: 85]. The research in neurosciences have shown that classical authors were right to ask this question. All their generalizations, inferences and great epiphanies are confirmed in neuro-evolution. From the fifth postulate of the theory of war and peace, it follows that each new generation of a mental space seeks to create the most comfortable conditions for the realization of its internal creative potentials. New generations face the same problem, which in literature is called “the problem of fathers and children”: the complexity of the realization of the internal creative potentials in the already established social conditions created by the previous generations of a mental space. This complexity, and often even – the impossibility of self-realization by the new generations of a mental space in well-established material and virtual space, evokes aggression, “the desire to change the world”, leads to violence, civil wars, revolutions. Nature seeks to build relations on a competitive basis everywhere, and the necessity to find a regulatory compromise. The theory of Gaston Bouthoul, Jack Goldstone, Gary Fuller, Gunnar Heinsohn and others reveal the cause that increases the probability of war in societies with a large number of young men who are not engaged in ongoing peace work. Each new generation is trying to “recapture” space for self-realization, occupied by the older generations, and the older generations seek to defend the space already occupied by them. In this confrontation between the generations, the basis of which is formed by biochemical and neurobiological processes, emerge the desire of mental spaces to seek for various forms of peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial collaboration (§ 50). The desire for peace often leads to violence, conflicts, and wars. Achieving peace is considered as the aim, and war as the means to an end. 5

The concept of “Intelligent matter” has been developed by the author since 2000. The recent generalization, including the definition given in the book “The Theory of Evolution: From a Space Vacuum to Neural Ensembles and Moving Forward” [Bazaluk 2014].

118

Chapter Five

The fifth postulate of the theory of war and peace creates fertile ground for comprehension of the philosophy of war in the philosophy of peace. Any mentality faced with the difficulty of the realization of the internal creative potentials in a mental space. It often arouses dissatisfaction and aggression in it. If there is a leader in a mental space, which unites mentalities that are feeling dissatisfaction with conditions for self-realization, then a mental space turns into a mental space-aggressor. The greater the quantity of “unrealized” mentalities in a locus of civilization is, the stronger the support of a leader is, and the more a mental space is aimed at the manifestations of aggression in the form of violence and war6. The idea of “war as a necessity of peace” often corresponds to the slogan of the “old” world of historical ideas to be replaced by “new”, more modern and relevant. Is it good or bad? The answer to this question is found in the theory of war and peace. It is “bad” if the “new” world destroys the “old” one as well as if the “old” world limits the formation of the “new” world. It is “good” for both worlds, and the Earth’s mental space is only in searching for a regulatory compromise between the “old” and “new” worlds of historical ideas. The variability of criteria of a regulatory compromise is the basis of continuous and nonlinear complication of a mental space; it is the ontology of human and social development. Hence, the philosophy of war in the philosophy of peace is as much a necessity for the human and social development as food, sleep, birth, and death. It only remains to choose the right place for the philosophy of war and the role of the philosophy of peace, to enshrine the potential in the phrase: “the desire for peace,” was not to the detriment of the world, and for good. § 61. Let us consider the correlation between the idea of “equilibrium (the balance of power),” that was first formulated by Niccolò Machiavelli in his treatise “The Prince”, published in 1532, and the idea of a “regulatory compromise.” The idea of a “regulatory compromise” is basic in the theory of war and peace. It is formulated by the author in the book “The Theory of Evolution: From a Space Vacuum to Neural Ensembles and Moving Forward”, as follows: “Owing to the actions of opposing reasons for 6

It is enough to compare the statistics of the number of people who were dissatisfied with their life in Nazi Germany, in Russia under Stalin and Putin, etc.

The Philosophy of War and Peace

119

evolution: internal (active principle) and external (natural selection) continuous and nonlinear block complication of the structure, types of interaction and environments of any state of matter have their limitations, outlined by a regulatory compromise” [Bazaluk, 2016: 43]. And further: “A regulatory compromise as a result of the interaction of internal and external causes of evolution is not constant. As with all the factors and causes of evolution, a regulatory compromise is variable, inclined to complication. A positive feedback mechanism can be seen in it: complication of the system leads to a conflict, the removal of which is possible only through further complications” [Bazaluk, 2016: 43]. We see a typical example of the relationship between the two traditions in scientific knowing of the world: the lines of Democritus and Plato. The idea of “equilibrium (the balance) of power” that is used as a theory in modern political science is a special case of a universal process called a “regulatory compromise”, which is observed and used in cosmology, biology and neurosciences. However, unlike the idea of “equilibrium (the balance) of power”, the idea of a “regulatory compromise” includes much more fundamental aspects and assertions. If we consider it as applied to the features of the formation, development and manifestations of a mental space, then it consists of two main blocks: the internal and external factors, and the causes that we have considered in § 37–43. The idea of a “regulatory compromise” includes the features of formation of the structure and functions of the neural ensembles of consciousness and subconsciousness at the scale of the Earth and the Cosmos, as well as the physical and chemical factors of the Earth’s biosphere and the universe, which have a direct impact on the features of the formation and manifestation of a mental space in the conditions of separate loci of civilization and the Earth as a whole. The idea of a regulatory compromise is that all the processes and phenomena that have been observed since the birth of the universe to the present time are subject to the variability of the balance of internal and external forces influence. For any mental space, war and peace are the ways of realization of the internal creative potentials in a complicated material world. For each new generation of mentalities, the entry into the logosphere and technosphere (the virtual and material worlds of a mental space on any material object) is equivalent to war and peace for the new space of self-realization. And here, on the brink between old and new, “fathers and children”, war and peace, and so on, a regulatory compromise just manifests itself, giving the promotion of the new, and still retains the

120

Chapter Five

certain structures and functions of the “old.” The whole world is built on a regulatory compromise: the “new” does not reject the “old.” A regulatory compromise, regulating the relations between the two universal causes of evolution, is a fundamental principle of being, allowing the universe, biological life and civilization to have their history. In any other case, or the “new” (the active principle as the internal cause of evolution) always destroyed the “old”, or the “old” (natural selection as the external cause of evolution) always destroyed the “new.” § 62. Let us consider the fourth correlation, the idea of “The role of the ruler’s personality in the destiny of the state”, and the fifth assertion of the theory of war and peace. The idea about the importance of the ruler’s role in the destiny of the nation (state) was first suggested and argued by Niccolò Machiavelli at the beginning of the 16th century. In the 20th century, on the base of this idea a theory was formulated in the research of Pierre Renouvin and JeanBaptiste Duroselle. In the 21st century, thanks to this idea, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Alastair Smith, Randolph M. Siverson and James D. Morrow created the selectorate theory, in which they examined the features of the development of relations between the leaders and the people [Bueno de Mesquita et al., 2003]. In the book “Corruption in Ukraine: Rulers’ Mentality and the Destiny of the Nation, the Geophilosophy of Ukraine,” the author proved this idea through the example of Ukraine and the Ukrainians, whose development was dependent on the similar corrupt mentality of the five presidents of Ukraine in the period of 1990–2016 [Bazaluk, 2016]. Ontology and this idea are based on continuous and nonlinear complication of the neural ensembles of consciousness and subconsciousness. In § 51, as well as over the course of chapter four, we have repeatedly emphasised the diversity of research in neurosciences and psychology on the problem of mentality-leaders. Comprehending the results of this research by neurophilosophical methods, we note a few important points: 1. The characteristics of a mentality-leader are largely formed at the level of the neurobiology of the brain; their social environment promotes or suppresses their disclosure. 2. Neuroscientists exclude strict criteria in determining mentalityleaders and agree that the social environment has a strong influence on this question. In some conditions of the social environment (e.g., war, dictatorship, etc.), the features of the structure and functions of

The Philosophy of War and Peace

121

the brain are important, which allow a mentality to manifest as a leader, in others (e.g., in a democratic society) they are completely different. 3. An important factor in a mentality-leader is an active life position and ability to handle stress. These qualities are laid down in the features of the human brain’s biochemistry and the actions of genetic programs. Based on neurobiological studies, we have formulated the fifth assertion of the theory of war and peace as follows: “The role of a leader in the choice by a mental space of war or peace is determinative. The more powers the mentality-leaders have in the management of a mental space, the more dependence on the development of a mental space concerning the direction of their creative potentials.” In the next chapter, on the examples of the history of Europe, we consider how the mentality-leaders influenced the endless localisation of European borders in the 20th century.

5.3 War and Peace is a prerogative of educational technologies § 63. In contrast to Carl von Clausewitz [Clausewitz, 2007], Heimo Hofmeister [Hoffmeister, 2006] and many other researchers, the author does not believe that war and peace are the prerogatives of politics. The ontology of war and peace reveals the problem on an entirely different plane – the formation, development and manifestations of a mental space. In this plane, only the impact of educational technologies is effective. In the next part of the research, “The Theory of Education: ‘Transforming the Universe’”, the author plans to reveal the connection between the models of a mentality and a mental space that are developed in neurophilosophy, and the possibilities of educational technologies, from the effectiveness and impact of which depend the features of the formation, development, and manifestations of a mentality and a mental space in the material and virtual worlds. Here, we list only the main theses of the upcoming research that are connected with the theory of war and peace: 1. Each new generation of mentalities is structurally and functionally different from previous generations. These changes are minor and not mass. They are observed in no more than 1 percent of the total

122

Chapter Five

number of a generation. All of them are connected with an increase in the efficiency of a mentality work with the external information environment: the features of assimilation of information and the realization of internal creative potentials in the material and virtual worlds. 2. Continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure and functions of the brain in each new generation emphasises the obvious tendency in the development of Earth’s mentality space: against the background of degradation and replacement of biological structures and functions of the body by artificial implants, the structures and functions of the neural ensemble of consciousness develop intensively. Moreover, the possibilities of the latter are connected not only with complication of the structure and functions of the brain, but also with artificial products that are as alternative means – means of labour, expand the fullness of selfrealization of a mentality and a mental space in the material and virtual worlds. 3. With each generation, the expanding possibilities of the brain manifest in complications of means of labour (the technosphere), which increase the efficiency and fullness of self-realization of the internal creative potentials of a mentality and a mental space. This tendency leads to the search for new spaces for self-realization. Most of the material and virtual spaces of the Earth are already occupied. This increases the competition at the scale of the Earth and directs the search for mental spaces for self-realization to nearEarth space and the Solar System. The exit of a mental space into the Cosmos is a natural process because the model “Evolving matter” considers the future of the Earth as a space travel by an artificial material object. This prospect was explained by another tendency that was established in the evolutionary theories: with each new generation, with complication of the Earth’s mental space, due to continuous and nonlinear complication of the universe and the solar system, in particular, the physical and chemical conditions on the Earth’s surface change. The Earth is becoming less suitable for biological life. 4. Continuous and nonlinear complication of the Earth’s mental space is not only globalization and the scope of changes in value orientation, as evidenced by the results of a worldwide research project “World Values Survey” [World Values Survey, 2015]. This is a restructurization of a mental space itself, and its orientation on the scale of the Cosmos. In the external manifestations, this affects

The Philosophy of War and Peace

123

the strengthening of the role of international organizations in the development strategy of the Earth’s civilization, as well as in space exploration through alliances and coalitions. 5. It follows from the theory of war and peace; the desire for peace rather often involves aggression in the form of violence, a conflict and a war. The philosophy of war is an integral part of the philosophy of peace. The idea of “Perpetual Peace”, proposed in 1713 by the French abbé de Saint-Pierre, has nothing to do with the idea of disarmament. If it is possible, but only given the variability of criteria of a regulatory compromise between international alliances that are permanently ready for war. 6. The second assertion of the theory of war and peace points out: with complication of the structure and functions of a mental space, its manifestations are also complicated, including the ways of war and achieving peace (§ 53). A few centuries ago, a war took place only on land and at sea. In today’s reality, the theory of war and peace considers the ways of war in the whole Earth’s space and the universe. 7. Modernity actualizes a new problem in the philosophy of war and peace, which requires a deep comprehension and comprehensive evaluation. Understanding of this problem is directly connected with the effectiveness of educational technologies, because only education lays down the necessary scale of perception of the world in the rising generations of a mental space. If one relies upon modern evolutionary theories (including the model of “evolving matter”), then the Earth’s civilization is one of numerous civilizations in the Cosmos that is also in the early stages of its development7. Relying on the assertions of our proposed theory of war and peace, particularly on the third and fourth assertions of the theory of war and peace (§ 53), we understand that the philosophy of war in the philosophy of peace is not only the wars at the scale of civilization, but also the coming space wars. From this point of view, the philosophy of war in the philosophy of peace is the necessity to establish military alliances, which are able to develop powerful and effective space weapons that will affect not only, and not so much, the endless localisation of Earth’s space, but the 7

This issue was revealed and argued in the last book of the author on the problem of evolution of the Universe: “The Theory of Evolution: From a Space Vacuum to Neural Ensembles and Moving Forward” [Bazaluk, 2016].

124

Chapter Five

offensive and defensive capabilities of the Earth’s mental space. Already now, society needs to think about: (a) How to defend themselves from space expansion on the part of extraterrestrial civilizations; (b) How to organize the space expansion, in case of the impossibility of life on Earth, by themselves. 8. On the effectiveness of educational technologies, another important aspect of the theory of war and peace depends on overcoming the narrow confines of national interests in the name of the development of planetary and space potentials of the Earth’s mental space. In the next chapter, we will prove that the priority of national interests over the general safety led to the First and Second World Wars. National interests are an important factor in world politics. However, the even more important factor is the safety of the Earth’s mental space from internal (ethnic and regional wars) and external (from space) shocks. Considering the process of globalization by the methods of neurophilosophy, we discover its ontology: the Earth’s mental space complicates its structure to a single integrated organization. Continuously and nonlinearly complicating integrated planetary structure is formed, which combines the already mastered potentials of the Earth and is oriented towards the development of new potentials and spaces of the universe. 9. The constant threat of war and the philosophy of war itself in the philosophy of peace actualize a “basic law of nature” that was formulated in the middle of 17th century by Thomas Hobbes – obliged to seek peace (est quaerendam esse pacem in Latin) [Hobbes, 1991]! This law puts educational technologies to the forefront. Their main aim is to teach the rising generation about keeping the peace: to teach how to negotiate, to compromise, to respect others, to be tolerant and merciful, etc. According to Raymond Aron, mentalities should get rid of three main diseases of “militancy”: tribal selfishness, collective aggression and mania of militaristic or heroic morality [Aron, 2000: 336]. Essentially, the education system should teach the rising generations to find the answer to the question, which was formulated by Sir Michael Barber “How does my life help to remove the causes of war?” [Barber, 2009]. 10. By itself, the social environment does not mitigate individual and collective aggression, but exacerbates it. This fact was pointed out by Raymond Aron [Aron, 2000]. For this reason, at the scales of civilization, international organizations should be created that

The Philosophy of War and Peace

125

would reveal militancy of this or that locus of civilization, and have the legal power and authority to influence it. Quincy Wright offers four criteria for measuring the “militancy” of a locus of civilization [Aron, 2000: 313]: (1) a habit of cruelty, which is evident in religious rituals, performances, sports, etc.; (2) aggressiveness, which is manifested by the frequency of invasions, imperial wars, or wars between states; (3) the severity or influence of the military morality, which is expressed in the forms of military discipline in the organization of society; (4) the tendency to despotism or centralization is the presence or absence of the constitutional limits on the use of power. 11. It follows from the third and fourth postulates of the theory of war and peace that the victory in the war is, above all, a battle that was won for the world of historical ideas, i.e., the victory in the virtual space, self-realization of a mentality and a mental space. In this space, only educational technologies can resist propaganda and information attacks. This fact allows us to assert that educational technologies are the most important factor of war and peace, as well as the underlying technology of defensive or offensive strategy in modern and future wars. § 64. Thus, the ontology of war and peace brings out the problem of war and peace from the narrow world of politics and international relations to the world of formation, development and manifestations of mental spaces, which are localised in the geographical and virtual space of the Earth and the universe. The theories of international relations in manifestations of the Earth’s mental space are nothing more than a special case, which reveal only an episode in its external manifestations. Following Friedrich Ratzel, Karl Haushofer, Carl Schmitt, Kenneth Boulding, and others, our research confirms that often the state borders do not correspond to the borders of loci of civilization. For this reason, the author believes that inter-state relationships cannot fully reveal the fullness of relationships between societies and their culture. This can be done properly if one regards the Earth’s mental spaces as loci of civilization, which are connected by common ideas and the history of their formation. The relevance of the idea and the ability to convey it unites the different loci of civilizations, i.e. inter-ethnic alliances are created that are aimed at the realisation of the idea. De-actualization of the idea leads to the disintegration of the unions and actualization of a new idea.

126

Chapter Five

Philosophical comprehension of the theory of war and peace leads to the understanding of the necessity to teach the rising generations the following competencies: – The ability to actualize the idea. – The ability to choose from a variety of proposed ideas, only that which is necessary for a mental space. – The ability to focus on the idea and its realization. – The ability to protect and promote the idea to mass consciousness. Continuous and nonlinear complication of the Earth’s mental space leads to the exploration of new spaces for self-realization of the internal creative potentials. In recent decades, there has been a tendency that mental spaces in search of spaces for self-realization prefer virtual spaces more than geographical or material ones. They choose the logosphere and information technology, in which, directly without the mediation of the technosphere, they realise their creative potentials. This tendency actualizes the world of ideas, and the necessity of receiving the competencies of work with it and in it, even more so. The formation, actualization and protection of ideas, as well as the creation of history concerning them, is a separate chapter on the philosophy of war and peace. Lack of understanding of the problem leads to gross errors of states and unions in strategies and tactics, the change of governments, terror, and wars. A particular aspect of the problem is a migration policy, the errors in which, for example, have already affected the European security strategy. Mental spaces, rejecting the world of historical ideas on the territory of which they were located, cause a potential conflict, the solution of which is possible only through educational technologies or violence. § 65. According to the laws of the universe, the Earth’s mental space is complicated continuously and nonlinearly. This leads to three consequences: 1. With each generation, the borders of planet Earth become narrower for a mental space. A mental space begins to study the planets of the solar system and the universe as new spaces for the realization of the internal creative potentials. The prerequisites are created for space expansion.

The Philosophy of War and Peace

127

2. Continuous and nonlinear complications of a mental space are developing unevenly. This leads to the uneven development of loci of civilization, and consequently the actualization of the problem of war and peace. The author believes the most effective way to “smooth out” any uneven development of mental spaces and loci of civilization is effective educational technologies, aimed at the peaceful resolution of conflicts. 3. Educational technologies and educational policy are an essential element of information warfare, which allows us to: – Actualize or de-actualize any idea and, consequently, create or destroy the world of history that is built around the idea. – Protect one’s world from information attacks. – Manage a society: manipulate its emotional state and consciousness. – Rebuild the structure of a society and reorient the functions of structural elements. Summing up the results of our concise consideration of the significance of educational technologies in complications of a mental space, we come to the following conclusions: the features of the formation, development and manifestations of a mental space in Earth’s space and the universe depend solely on the orientation and effectiveness of educational technology.

Conclusion of chapter five § 66. In chapter five, as a result of philosophical comprehension of the theory of war and peace, the author has tried to reveal the following provisions: 1. The theory of war and peace is built by the author on the basis of the scientific and philosophical theoretical model “Evolving matter”, which reveals the fundamental principles of being. The main assertions of the model “Evolving matter” were used as the second axiom of the theory of war and peace. This allowed the author to conclude that the ontology of the problem of war and peace is a space of continuously and nonlinearly complicating neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness, which are nested in the spaces of the Earth’s biosphere and the universe. 2. Using the examples for the comparison of Plato’s idea of “About the unity of good and evil”; Cicero’s and Hegel’s ideas of “War is a necessity of the world”; Machiavelli’s idea of “Equilibrium (the

128

Chapter Five

balance) of power” and “The role of the ruler’s personality in the destiny of the state” with the results of the research in neurosciences, the author showed a direct dependence of the degree of the development of theories in the humanities on the level of the systematization of the research in neurophilosophy. With the achievements in neurosciences and the systemization of them in neurophilosophy, the conceptual and generalized “theories” of the humanities are clarified, changed, and adhere to the criteria of scientific theories. This tendency indirectly confirms the axiomatic theory of war and peace: all manifestations related to man and society are a consequence of continuous and nonlinear complication of the Earth’s mental space. 3. The author highlighted the importance of the further comprehension of the philosophy of war in the philosophy of peace. The urgency of this problem is caused by not only the prospect of a possible control over the process of the endless localisation of Earth’s space, but also the probability of space wars. According to the modern theories of evolution, in the development of material, energy, and information resources of the universe, the Earth’s civilization can be involved in space wars. 4. The author has tried to prove another key thesis of the research: war and peace are a prerogative of educational technologies. Given that, the ontology of war and peace is in the plane of the formation, development and manifestation of a mental space, only educational technologies can effectively act on them. Its choice of the way of resolving a conflict can only depend on the efficiency and orientation of educational technologies and the aggressiveness or peacefulness of the external manifestations of a mental space.

CHAPTER SIX THE THEORY OF WAR AND PEACE ABOUT THE ENDLESS LOCALISATION IN EUROPE TH ST IN THE 20 AND EARLY 21 CENTURY

Si vis pacem, para bellum (lat. “If you wish for peace, prepare for war”) § 67. The German philosopher August Faust, a student of Heinrich Rickert, at the height of World War II, wrote the following in the report “Philosophy of War”: “The task of the “philosophy of war” is not only to explain theoretically what war is and what it means to itself, but also to show what it means to us. We will understand it only at that time, when we are not bystanders, staring at it from a safe location. The need for personal involvement in it is the main problem of the philosophy of war”1 [Faust, 2006: 285]. Given the aggravated situation at present in the world, each of us is willynilly in the war conditions. Let us examine the proposed theory of war and peace on the example of the history of Europe, in the 20th and early 21st century. First, we give careful consideration to the four maps that are shown below: a) the map of Europe before the revolution of 1917 (Figure 1); b) the map of Europe after the revolution of 1917 (Figure 2); c) the map of Europe after the Second World War (Figure 3); d) the map of Europe after the collapse of the USSR (Figure 4).

1

It is worth noting that August Faust supported fascism actively and committed suicide on May 7 1945, at the eve of the German capitulation.

130

Chapter Six

Fig. 1. The map of Europe, in 1915.

Fig. 2. The map of Europe, November 11 1918 [Omniatlas, 1918].

The Theory of War and Peace About Endless Localisation in Europe

Fig. 3. The map of Europe during the “Cold War”, 1950 [Zubok, 2007].

Fig. 4. The map of Europe in 2016.

131

Chapter Six

132

In chapter six, we: 1. Specify the features of the geophilosophy of Europe of the 20th and early 21st centuries. 2. Examine the main assertions and prognostic potential of the theory of war and peace on the facts of the history of Europe of the 20th century.

6.1 The features of geophilosophy of Europe § 68. If we consider the history of Europe of the 20th and early 21st centuries from the point of view of geophilosophy, we can highlight two strongly pronounced features. Let us consider the first one. During this period in Europe, the four mental space-aggressors were formed: the UK, Germany, France, and Russia. Let us make it clear at once that we do not put any negative sense in the term “mental spaceaggressor.” We just state the fact that the world of historical ideas of the states mentioned above covers territories far exceeding the limits of their geographical location. Given the fact that these worlds always had engaged and have continued to engage in conflicts with the worlds of historical ideas of other mental spaces in Earth’s space, they are in need of constant defence, using the ways of war and peace, and therefore the data of mental spaces predisposed to aggressive manifestations. In the first half of the 20th century, the states mentioned above, expanding or defending the borders of their worlds of historical ideas, turned Europe into “Bloodlands”2. In the second half of the 20th century, armed with the ideas of capitalism and socialism, the mental space-aggressors and states, being under that influence, divided into two irreconcilable camps: on the one hand the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, and on the other, Russia (USSR format). There was the formation of the two opposing 2 In the book “Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin”, Timothy Snyder presented exhaustive historical material for that period [Snyder, 2010]. According to Boris Urlanis, the number of killed and dead during the wars in Europe in the first half of the 20th century is over 40 million people [Urlanis, 1960]. According to the website “Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Primary Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century”, the number of killed and dead during the interstate and civil wars of the first half of the 20th century reaches 100 million people [Source List, 2011].

The Theory of War and Peace About Endless Localisation in Europe

133

civilizations, “Western” (capitalist) and “East” (socialist), which lasted 46 years. By the end of the 20th century, through the collapse of the USSR, the bipolar world collapsed, and some of the states which were in the world of historical ideas of the Soviet Union moved into the sphere of influence of the European Union. The Russian Federation (the legal successor of the USSR) as the mental space-aggressor lost its influence in Europe and the world. The territories and nations that Russia controlled for a long time began to emerge from the sphere of its influence and began to build their independent policy. Thus, by the end of the 20th century, Europe had the same result that it had before, i.e. with a disturbed regulatory compromise. The second feature of the geophilosophy of Europe is the presence of the limitrophe states, which by virtue of proximity to mental space-aggressors often act as mental spaces-victims. Since the middle of the 19th century, the German school of geopolitics (Friedrich Ratzel, Johan Rudolf Kjellen, Friedrich Naumann and others) actively developed the concept of the limitrophe territories3. At the end of the 19th century, Lord George Curzon introduced into scientific circulation the concept of the “buffer state”; in his understanding, it was the formation of the buffer at the junctions of the most powerful states [Curzon, 1909]. In the first half of the 20th century, Carl Schmitt, the German political theorist, introduced the concept of “Greater Space” (Großraum), which in his understanding was intended to replace the concept of “territory” as the classical concept of the nationstate with the concept of “space”, with its mobile and advance uncertain borders [Schmitt, 2010]. In the second half of the 20th century, the fundamental work of Kenneth Boulding brought the research of the limitrophes to a new level of understanding. Considering the concepts of the “sphere of vital interests” and the “sphere of influence”, Boulding introduced into scientific circulation the concept of “critical limits” [Boulding, 1962]. Thus, the limitrophe states in our understanding are separate loci of civilization, which are located geographically close to loci of mental space-aggressors. Despite the fact that they have their independent locus as a territory, and, as with the sacramental world of historical ideas, they are included in the “sphere of influence” and the “sphere of vital interests” 3

The concept “limitrophe” comes from the Latin concept “limitrophus” that means, “bordering on.”

134

Chapter Six

of a neighboring mental space-aggressor. Given the compact location of separate loci of civilization in Europe and the oversaturation of Europe with the sacramental worlds of historical ideas, the limitrophe states often get in the “sphere of vital interests” of several mental space-aggressors. For example, in Fig. 5 you can see that currently the limitrophe states, which are located along the border of Western Europe and the Russian Federation, are Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland. However, in the first half of the 20th century, while the UK, France, and Germany could not find unanimity between them, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania and Moldova were also the limitrophe states for a long time.

Fig. 5. The map of Eastern Europe, 2015.

The Theory of War and Peace About Endless Localisation in Europe

135

Thus, the geophilosophy of Europe of the 20th and early 21st century is a complicated relationship between mental space-aggressors for the promotion and strengthening of their worlds of historical ideas in the territory of the limitrophe states. § 69. Throughout the history of the 20th century, the borders of territories and the worlds of historical ideas mentioned above by us as European mental space-aggressors (the UK, Germany, France, Russia) were continuously changed. In general, over the 20th century in Europe, there have been three major border changes: 1. The first one was connected with the results of the First World War. After the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian, Russian, German4 and Ottoman Empire, many independent states emerged. This problem was investigated by John Horne, Volker R. Berghahn, John Keegan, Hedley Paul Willmott, Barbara Wertheim Tuchman, Christopher Munro Clark, etc. 2. The second border changes were connected with the results of the Second World War that was assigned by the Potsdam Agreement in 1945. This problem was investigated by Max Hastings, John Keegan, Stephen W. Sears, Richard Overy, Antony Beevor, David Glantz, Hedley Paul Willmott, Franz Halder, Kurt von Tippelskirch, John Fuller, Basil Liddell Hart, Timothy Snyder, Sergei Pereslegin, etc. 3. The third (bloodless) border changes took place in 1991, after the collapse of the USSR. This problem was investigated by David R. Marples, Ronald Grigor Suny, Giulietto Chiesa, Rudolf Pihoya, Igor Froyanov, Sergei Kara-Murza, Roy Medvedev, Svetlana Alexievich, etc. Let us consider the regularity of large-scale redistributions of the borders in Europe through the basic assertions of our proposed theory of war and peace. Examining the theory of war and peace according to the facts of the history of Europe, we will use the predictive potential of the theory, which at the end of the book will allow us to formulate a new theoretical basis for the creation of the European Security Strategy. 4

In Russian historiography, the German state was named by the German Empire between 1871 and 1918. Although, the official name of the German state between 1871 and 1945 was Deutsches Reich.

136

Chapter Six

6.2 Regularity of endless localisation in Europe of the 20th and beginning of 21st century. The prognostic potential of the theory of war and peace § 70. Let us consider the regularity of the first large-scale border changes of loci as the territories and as the world of historical ideas in Europe. It is connected with the First World War (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918) and its outcome. As follows from our proposed theory, war and peace are the ways of achieving a regulatory compromise between the opposing parties: complicating needs of mental spaces and possibilities to meet them, the worlds of historical ideas and possibilities of their realization, etc. In the early 20th century, there were five clearly defined mental space-aggressors in Europe: Britain, France, Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary5. Thanks to the peace agreements between them there was a regulatory compromise that included the observance of territorial borders and the borders of spheres of influence in Europe (over the limitrophes) and beyond. However, it follows from the first assertion of the theory of war and peace that the endless localisation of Earth’s space is a natural process based on the universal factors and causes of evolution. It means that with each new generation, the conditions of the existing regulatory compromise is less suited to mental space-aggressors than it is to limitrophe states. In the new generations of mental spaces that were especially aggrieved in the existing regulatory compromise (or feeling deprived, as for example, Germany), aggressive sets and stereotypes of aggression, aimed at the revision of the existing peace agreements, were formed. The second assertion of the theory of war and peace explains the causes of the increasing desire of some separate mental spaces to change the terms of the regulatory compromise: with complication of the structure and functions of ɚ mental space, its manifestations are also complicated. In this regard, especially, Germany stood out because its creative and material potentials were directed to the preparation for war. Long before the outbreak of hostilities, the ruling elite of Germany created the predisposing, provoking and supporting factors of the external environment that 5

Although Italy and Turkey were mental space-aggressors, however in the history of Europe of the 20th century, from our point of view, they could not get the role of independent geopolitical players.

The Theory of War and Peace About Endless Localisation in Europe

137

contributed to the formation and consolidation of aggressive sets and the stereotypes of aggression in a mental space. Thus, it is not by chance that it was Germany that showed the greatest interest in violation of the regulatory compromise that emerged between European mental spaceaggressors in the early 20th century. The second assertion of the theory of war and peace explains another fact complication of the ways of war and achieving peace. For example, during the four years of the First World War, the attacking columns of soldiers with rifles blazing and the generals on horseback were replaced by artillery and air support in offensive operations, as well as chains of soldiers with machine guns, heavy flamethrowers, and a fleet of heavy armoured vehicles. For the first time in the history of humanity, the First World War was conducted simultaneously on the land, in the air, on and under water. Not only 9,442,000 soldiers and officers were killed or died in that war [Urlanets, 1960] but it led to the fall of the four greatest empires: Russian, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and German. On their territories, the new loci of civilizations emerged: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. Let us pay attention to the new ways and means of warfare, which included the latest achievements of the technosphere at the beginning of the 20th century: a) In the second battle of Ypres, Belgium (April 22 1915 – May 25 1915), German troops first used chemical weapons in the history of wars. April 22, 180 tons of chlorine gas was released simultaneously on British troops, and as a result, 15,000 people were affected, 5,000 of whom died within ten minutes. b) For the first time, in the history of warfare, submarines were used (Edwin Gray investigated this issue [Gray, 2003]). c) For the first time, aircraft became actively used for both intelligence functions and bombing (the studies of James Molony Spaight, Eric Lawson, Jane Lawson, Jon Guttman, etc.). The third assertion of the theory of war and peace – war and peace are two basic ways of expanding possibilities of a locus of civilization – reveals the true causes of the First World War. Each of the 34 states involved in

138

Chapter Six

the war (from mental space-aggressors to limitrophe states) pursued their interests6. For example: – Great Britain, fearing a potential German threat, refused the traditional “isolation” policy for the country and switched to a policy of anti-German bloc states. Already by 1914, the United Kingdom had been conducting an undeclared economic and trade war against Germany, as well as actively preparing for war in case of aggression by Germany. – France attempted to regain Alsace and Lorraine, to maintain colonies in North Africa, and to stop the advance of German goods in its traditional markets. – The Russian Empire fought for markets, but especially for political influence in Europe; traditionally seeking to unite Slavic nations under its patronage. – Having achieved economic recovery, the German Empire aspired to military, economic and political power in Europe; to the redistribution of the colonies of England, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Portugal in its favor. – The Austro-Hungarian Empire sought to maintain its influence over the previously conquered territories, in particular, over Bosnia and Herzegovina, captured by it in 1908, but which the Russian Empire insisted was independent. The fourth assertion of the theory of war and peace – aggression of a mental space has a tendency to increase sharply with the growing possibilities of its application – is illustrated by the history of Germany, which provoked the first two world wars. Germany as a mental spaceaggressor has not been formed in one day. For decades, the German politicians and economists were improving the manifestations of their mental space. In 1911–1912, in Germany, the laws on emergency war taxes, the increase of the army and weapons modernization programs were adopted. However, the absence of constraints, as well as an uncoordinated policy of the leading European mental space-aggressors, intriguing each other, were the main reason for the militarization of the German Empire. 6

Perhaps the most telling example of the third assertion is the US role in the First World War, which seemed to have nothing to do with Europe. As the researchers note (for example, Sergei Gumelɺv, Igor Panarin, and others), before the First World War the US was the world’s largest debtor, and after the war it became the sole global lender.

The Theory of War and Peace About Endless Localisation in Europe

139

Germany’s claims to the existing world order and spheres of influence, as well as a desire to review them in its favor, were an important reason of endless localisation of European borders in the first half of the 20th century7. Finally, the fifth assertion of the theory of war and peace is about the crucial role of leaders in the choice of war or peace by a mental space, it explains why for the European mental space-aggressors a war was considered more acceptable in the achievement of new possibilities of a locus than the peace agreements. The psychological portraits of Raymond Poincare, President of France from 1913 to 1920; George V, King of England and Sir Edward Grey, British Minister of Foreign Affairs; the chief of the Russian General Staff, General Nikolai Yanushkevich and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Empire, Sergei Sazonov8 as well as some others, indicated their uncompromising attitude and willingness to defend the interests of their mental spaces. Especially revealing in this regard are the biographies and psychological portraits of the German Emperor and King of Prussia Wilhelm II, the Chief of the General Staff of the Field of German troops Helmuth Johannes von Moltke, as well as the rest of ruling elite of the German Empire. For example, in 1912–1913, German leaders already predicted that the most convenient time for the beginning of aggression would be the summer of 1914. It only remained to wait for an occasion9. Thus, the regularity of the first large-scale border changes of loci as territories, and as the worlds of historical ideas in Europe is fully explained by our proposed theory of war and peace, and its assertions. § 71. Let us verify the assertions of the theory of war and peace on the second large-scale border changes in Europe, which is connected to the course and results of the Second World War (September 1 1939 – September 2 1945).

7

This issue was investigated by Hans-Joachim Koch, Ruth Henig, William Mulligan, and others. 8 It was Nikolai Yanushkevich and Sergei Sazonov, which on August 31 1914 persuaded Nicholas II to declare general mobilization in Russia. 9 The information on these issues can be found in the books of the historians: John F. V. Keiger, Keith Robbins, John C. G. Röhl, Christopher Clark, Annika Mombauer and others.

140

Chapter Six

By the middle of the 20th century, in Europe, Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union strongly manifested an aggressive policy. Between them, as between the UK and France, the geopolitical significance of which remained very high in Europe, thanks to peace agreements, there was a regulatory compromise. However, as a result of the first assertion of our theory, the conditions of the existing regulatory compromise suited the new generations of mental space-aggressors less and less, especially Germany and the Soviet Union, which after the first large-scale border changes in Europe, lost not only the sphere of influence, but also the territories that earlier belonged to them. Therefore, having concluded the secret treaties, Germany, the Soviet Union and Italy took the first steps to a breach of a regulatory compromise10. The second assertion of the theory of war and peace explains the qualitative changes that have occurred in the ways of war and achieving peace. The innovations in the ways of war are the following: – About 30 countries in the world have mobilised their economic, social, and scientific capabilities for military actions, thereby erasing the line between civilian and military manifestations of a mental space in the locus. That is why, for the first time in the history of wars, World War II is characterized by a massive loss of civilian life11, and the strategic destruction of industrial enterprises and settlements12. – The fighting took place in the territories of three continents and the waters of four oceans. – There were new qualitative changes in the Air Force organization: Aircraft were used not only as fighter jets, bombers, reconnaissance planes and fire support of ground operations, but also for air transport and strategic bombing (the destruction of enemy industrial and population centres in the hinterland) (The studies of Norman Franks, Ken Delve, Martin Bowman, Andrew Haruk and many others). 10

The history of this issue is described in many scientific studies, for example, John Barber, Mark Harrison, Gabriel Morris Kolko, Bradley Lightbody, and others. Timothy Snyder’s research is the most impressive [Snyder, 2010]. 11 According to various sources, taking into account the victims of the Holocaust, 20–50 million civilians died [Source List, 2011]. 12 This issue was investigated by Boris Urlanis, John Tirman, Joseph E. Stiglitz, Mary Kaldor, and many others.

The Theory of War and Peace About Endless Localisation in Europe

141

– Along with advances in aircraft construction, the anti-aircraft armament was being perfected: radars to track air targets and surface-to-air missiles for destroying enemy aircraft were created, etc. (Norman Friedman, Bill Carr, Nigel Askey, Louis Brown, David Edgerton, and others). – There were revolutionary changes in Naval organization; aircraft carriers and submarines became used more often (Glyn Prysor, Eugene Liptak, John Frayn Turner, Geoffrey Bennett, Tony Bridgland, and others). – The use of armored vehicles in ground operations was the best it had ever been. Throughout the war, there was an increase of speed, armor thickness and firepower of tanks (Heinz Wilhelm Guderian, Jean-Denis GG Lepage, Steven Zaloga, George Bradford, Robert Edwards, Robert M. Citino, Vladimir Daines, and others). – With the complication of armored vehicles, the means of destroying tanks were improving: large-caliber artillery, anti-tank guns (towed and self-propelled), mortars, short-range anti-tank guns, etc. (Bruce I. Gudmundsson, Steven J. Zaloga, Chris Henry, Gordon L. Rottman, Alexei Ardashev, Semen Fedoseev, and others). – In spite of the scale of the mechanisation of ground troops, the infantry was still the main force in the war. Its arms reached significant perfection: rate of fire and quality of machine guns and rifles were increased, assault rifle, submachine gun and many others were created (Stephen Bull, Gordon L. Rottman, Charles Messenger, Maximilian Fretter-Pico, Ivan Pavlovsky, and others). – The issue of provision of communications for units and troops came on a completely new level – the distance and ways of information transmission were increased. The issues of security to transmit information through cryptography were being solved; encryption machines were developed13; the process of decryption information was improved (Francis Harry Hinsley, Ranjan Bose, Klaus Schmeh, Brian J. Winkel, Cipher A. Deavours, Dorothy E. Denning, and others). – Engineer troops destined to equip the areas, to provide the force’s offensive power; engineering reconnaissance, etc. reached new

13

The most famous encryption machine of the Second World War was The German Enigma Cipher Machine.

142

Chapter Six

levels of perfection (Beth F. Scott, Steve R. Waddell, Sergei Agafonov, Evgeny Maikov, Alexander Tsirlin, and others). – During this period, there were the most important technological and engineering breakthroughs connected to the creation of programmable computers (Z3, Colossus, and ENIAC); guided missiles; Manhattan project on developing nuclear weapons; the research of artificial harbors and oil pipelines under the English Channel in military operations (Jon Agar, Bruce Smith, Nick McCamley, Nikolai Krementsov, Manuel De Landa, Valery Klaving and others). – The first use of nuclear weapons (Frank Barnaby, John Hersey, Kyoko Iriye Selden, Clayton Chun, and others). – The large-scale use of propaganda (Gerd Horten, Stanley Newcourt-Nowodworski, Auriol Weigold, David Clampin, and others). From the innovations, in the ways of achieving peace, we note the following: in the redistribution of European borders, more than 100 million people of 62 countries, 73 that existed at that time (80 percent of the world population) were involved. Despite the difference in the contents of the worlds of historical ideas, participating in a war of the states, in 1945 a regulatory compromise was reached and adopted by the Potsdam Agreement. As a result of large-scale border changes of the territories and spheres of influence in Earth’s space: a) The role of Western European states in world politics significantly weakened. The European mental space-aggressors: the United Kingdom and France (not to mention Germany), despite their contribution to the victory over fascism, lost their influence on geopolitical processes in the world and Europe for decades. b) The bipolar model of the world was laid – the ideological and geopolitical confrontation between the two superpowers, the USA and the USSR, as well as the coalitions of the states that were grouped around them. By and large, only one mental spaceaggressor remained in Europe, which dictated its terms – the USSR. The explanation of the causes for the outbreak of World War II is laid down in the third postulate – only by war and violent manifestations Germany and the Soviet Union could satisfy their ambitions. Timothy Snyder wrote clearly about it in the best-selling book “Bloodlands: Europe

The Theory of War and Peace About Endless Localisation in Europe

143

Between Hitler and Stalin” [Snyder, 2010]. Germany and the Soviet Union as mental space-aggressors were not built in one day. Britain and France, in pursuit of their own interests, encouraged aggressive manifestations of Germany and the USSR for a long time. Ignoring the fourth postulate of the theory of war and peace, they allowed the creation of two authoritarian monsters that were firstly in alliance, and after – in a brutal war against each other. They led to the deaths of more than 80 million people and the destruction of infrastructure in most of Europe [Source List, 2011; Snyder, 2010]. In the second large-scale border change, the dictators Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin (Dzhugashvili) and Benito Mussolini, as well as Franklin Roosevelt, Sir Winston Spencer-Churchill, Charles André de Gaulle and some others played weighty roles14. Thus, the regularity of the second large-scale border change of loci as territories and the world of historical ideas in Europe is fully explained by our proposed theory of war and peace and its assertions. § 72. Let us examine the assertions of the theory of war and peace on the third large-scale border change in Europe, which occurred in late 1991. It was connected with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Unlike the first two border changes, the third one was not related to war and the visible manifestations of aggression. In the second half of the 20th century, the Soviet Union was the only mental space-aggressor at the scale of Europe, to which only the whole Western civilization15 could counter, led by the United States. Any European state could not compare with the Soviet Union on a degree of influence in Europe and the world16. At this time, a regulatory compromise was destroyed through the loss of the idea of socialism, economic isolation, the exorbitant costs of “brotherly nations” support, the war in Afghanistan, as well as political, information and psychological pressure of Western civilization on the USSR (the studies of David R. Marples, Martin Mccauley, Alexander Dallin, Richard Sakwa, William E. Watson, and many others). Against the background of 14

These issues were studied by James Bunting, Brenda Haugen, Geoffrey Roberts, William Manchester, Hans O. Staub, Richard Collier and many others. 15 In the understanding of Samuel Huntington [Huntington, 1996]. 16 For example, the studies of Andrew Langley, David R. Marples, Robert Strayer, Sergei Shakhrai and many others.

144

Chapter Six

the material and virtual confrontation of the two global worlds of historical ideas between capitalism and socialism, the idea of socialism (in the theoretical and practical embodiment of the USSR) de-actualized. The world of historical ideas of socialism simply lost the “cold war.” Thus, the first assertion of the theory has worked – a competition wins only that whose characteristics are the best to meet the conditions of natural selection. That is why, for the past 116 years of the history of Europe, new ideas appeared, or “old” ideas became complicated. Creating the new history, they turned into the world of historical ideas, uniting peoples and nations around themselves. Some ideas reached their peak but later lost their relevance (such as the ideas of socialism and communism), other ideas, on the contrary, acquired a second wind and conquered new spaces (for example, as the idea of democracy). It is the first assertion of the theory of war and peace that reveals the causes of the formation and disintegration of states (for example, the Soviet Union (from 1922 to 1991), Yugoslavia (from 1918 to 2003), and Czechoslovakia (from 1918 to 1993)); the formation of new alliances (political, economic, cultural, etc.) and the collapse of the old ones17. According to the second assertion of the theory of war and peace, the third border changes in Europe were made possible thanks to new technologies of warfare and achieving peace. Namely: – For the Soviet Union, the liberalisation of domestic policy and the economy imposed by Mikhail Gorbachev and Western “partners” was the technology of self-destruction. As soon as the Kremlin’s authoritarian power weakened its aggressive manifestations towards dissent, competing ideas of capitalism triumphed. Already by 1989, most of the limitrophe states (which were part of the Warsaw Pact and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance)

17

For example, between 1945 and 1991, the so-called “cold war” divided Europe into two major blocs: the Western (capitalist) and the Eastern (Socialist). In this period, the most Western European countries united in organizations that provided integration in the military-political sphere – NATO; in the Socio-legal Sphere – the Council of Europe; in the economic sphere – the European Economic Community. In the East of Europe, the socialist countries united in the military structure – the Warsaw Pact, and economic one – the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (the issue was investigated by Olav Njølstad, Mary L. Dudziak, Sean Sheehan, Steve Phillips, Natalia Egorova and many others).

The Theory of War and Peace About Endless Localisation in Europe

–

–

–

–

145

came out of the tutelage of the USSR and chose their independent course of development. With the weakening of aggressive manifestations of the Soviet Union and the opening of its information space, there was a strengthening of informational, psychological, and economic pressures from Western civilization. Under the pressure of the competing Western civilization, Gorbachev expanded democracy in the USSR, and autonomy of the Union Republics, although in practice it led to the actualization of nationalist ideas, excessive independence of “national elites”, decentralization in the country, and the destruction of economic ties. The destiny of Soviet republics in Asia, the Baltics and the Caucasus once again proved that de-actualization of one idea led to the actualization of another one. With minimal external support, relying mainly on their own resources, the former socialist republics actualized their national ideas and set the course to independence. Since 1989, for the first time in the USSR (in Moscow), the American company CNN began to broadcast officially. The information war entered the territory of the Soviet Union that was weakened by internal contradictions. As a result, on 7 February 1990, the Communist Party, at the insistence of Gorbachev, renounced the monopoly on political power, depriving the Soviet leadership of the last controls over the complex multi-ethnic country. Yegor Gaidar believes that the disintegration of the USSR was caused by the loss of the economic war by the Soviet Union. The last point of Western civilization in the economic victory was the decline in oil prices in the world that was initiated by the US government [Gaidar, 2006]. Gaidar wrote in that regard: “The date of the collapse of the USSR... is well known. It, of course, is not the Bialowieza agreements, it is not the events of August, it is September 13 1985. The day when Saudi Oil Minister Yamani said that Saudi Arabia stops a policy of containment oil and begins to recover its share in the oil market. Then, over the next six months, oil production in Saudi Arabia increased 3.5 times. Then the prices fell ... – 6.1 times” [Gaidar, 2006a]. Having lost the information and economic war, on August 24 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev resigned as general secretary of the CPSU and dissolved the party’s Central Committee. In three months, the Soviet Union ceased to exist. On the night of December 25 1991, at 7:32 pm Moscow time, after Gorbachev left the Kremlin, the Soviet

146

Chapter Six

flag was lowered for the last time. Instead, the Russian tricolor flag was raised, symbolically marking the end of the Soviet Union, and the complete victory of Western civilization over the world of historical ideas of socialism and communism. As a result of the reconfiguration of the former Soviet Union by its winners: the United States and the countries of the European Union18, there was the global geopolitical realignment. On the world map appeared not only the fifteen newly independent states of the world, but also the bipolar system of the world broke down, which lasted 46 years. Instead of it, a paradigm of a Unipolar World Order, with global dominance of the United States, began to develop. The feature of the third large-scale border changes in Europe was the new ways of war: information attacks, economic isolation, agents of influence, etc. The war of ides and economies took place for much of the second half of the 20th century (this issue was investigated by Mark R. Beissinger, Jan Hallenberg, Roger Keeran, Walter Laqueur, and others). Socialism as a political system lost this war against capitalism definitively. The countries of Western civilization returned the limitrophe states that were “liberated” from the influence of socialism under their control (in their world of historical ideas), and Germany restored its territorial integrity. The fourth assertion of the theory of war and peace in the third border changes in Europe manifested in the following ways. Observing the rapid disintegration of the USSR, some of the leaders of the USSR and European countries19 tried to maintain the inviolability of its border20. However, as it turned out, the process of disintegration could not be stopped. Western ideology rapidly penetrated into the disoriented Soviet society, and destroyed the foundations of the common worldview and values. Soviet society was defeated in its rhizome and lost faith in 18

China and Turkey also took part in the process of the division of the former Soviet Union. 19 In the Soviet Union, there were the representatives of the so-called “August Putsch” (between 18 and 21 August 1991). Among the leaders of Western States, there was Margaret Thatcher, who despite her steady prejudice toward communism, did not aspire to the disintegration of the USSR into small states. She was worried by the uncertainty of the nuclear legacy of the Soviet Union. 20 The research of Valentin Varennikov, Gordon M. Hahn, Kathleen E. Smith, Marc Garcelon and others.

The Theory of War and Peace About Endless Localisation in Europe

147

socialism, adopting the sets and stereotypes of the competing world of historical ideas – capitalism. Finally, the fifth assertion of the theory of war and peace is well illustrated by the psychological portraits and behavior of the leaders of the states who took a direct part in the third large-scale border change. A key role in this process belonged to Mikhail Gorbachev (with his inner circle: Raisa Gorbachev, Eduard Shevardnadze, and others) and Boris Yeltsin21, as well as Margaret Thatcher22, Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Bush, Helmut Kohl, François Mitterrand, and others23. Thus, the third large-scale border change in Europe occurred as a result of the loss of the world of historical ideas of socialism, the destructive role of the group of “reformers” (among which were “agents of influence”) headed by Mikhail Gorbachev, as well as economic, political, information and psychological wars against Western civilization. The regularity of all these processes is explained by our proposed theory of war and peace.

Conclusion of chapter six § 73. Thus, in chapter six, we: a) Have clarified the features of the geophilosophy of Europe in the 20th and early 21st century. Namely, at the scales of Europe (not just in the period under discussion, but also much earlier), the same states were usually mental space-aggressors: United Kingdom, France, Germany and Russia, and in the role of mental spacevictims were: Poland, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and 21

Steven Solnick in the book “Selling the State” argues that the Soviet Union collapsed not so much under the influence of external factors, but because of opportunism within the system, the betrayal of the ruling class – the Soviet nomenklatura [Solnick, 1998]. Sergei Haytun also wrote about the destructive role of the Soviet bureaucracy in the Soviet Union’s collapse [Haytun, 2014]. 22 In 1976, Yuri Gavrilov, a journalist for the “Red Star” newspaper, a central organ of the USSR Ministry of Defense, gave Thatcher the nickname “Iron Lady.” Thatcher liked this nickname, and her election campaign in 1979 was conducted under the slogan “Britain needs the Iron Lady.” 23 These issues were studied by Michel Tatu, Steven Otfinoski, Strobe Talbott, Timothy Colton, Andrew Felkay, John Blundell, John Campbell, Gregory Gordon and many others.

148

Chapter Six

Herzegovina, Finland, Hungary, and others. That is, in fact, the European territory was represented by the stable loci of mental space-aggressors and mental space-victims, through which mental space-aggressors expanded the material and virtual possibilities of their loci. b) We have examined the main assertions and prognostic potential of the theory of war and peace according to the facts of European history of the 20th century. The analysis of the last three large-scale border changes in Europe corresponds entirely to the assertions of the theory of war and peace, and proves their regularity and conditionality. The First World War, the Second World War, and the collapse of the Soviet Union are the chain of events on the basis of which there is continuous and nonlinear complication of mental spaces and their manifestations, as well as a violation and the search options in establishing a regulatory compromise. By careful analysis, all these processes of localisation of Europe’s space could be foreseen and warned. This is a predictive potential of our proposed theory.

CHAPTER SEVEN THE EUROPEAN SECURITY STRATEGY

§ 74. Does the proposed theory of war and peace correspond to Popper’s criterion (whether it is falsifiable or not)1? What are the limits of the application of the proposed theory? On the one hand, the theory of war and peace is based on a regulatory compromise – the variable state between the two universal causes of evolution (§ 52). A regulatory compromise is a universal state, which is observed in the universe, the Earth’s biosphere and noosphere. On the other hand, the theory is limited by space of a continuously and nonlinearly complicating mentality and mental space: “War and peace in continuous and nonlinear complication are the manifestations of a mental space by which a regulatory compromise between opposing forces is achieved: the active principle and natural selection (or a complicating structure of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness, and the external environmental conditions)” (§ 52). It follows that the impact of the theory of war and peace extend to all material and virtual spaces, in which complication of the structure and functions of a mentality, as well as its manifestations, is related with complication modelled in neurophilosophy. The theory of war and peace is rebutted if the basic provisions of the scientific and philosophical model of “evolving matter” are rejected, which are laid down as the second axiom. In addition, the proposed theory would be false if the author misunderstands the basis of man and society 1

In 1935, in the book “The Logic of Scientific Discovery” Karl R. Popper formulated the criterion of scientific development in the empirical theory. The theory satisfies Popper’s criterion (it is falsifiable and accordingly, scientific) if there is a methodological possibility to refute it by conducting one or other experiment, even if such an experiment has not yet been carried out [Popper, 2004].

150

Chapter Seven

and, consequently, the rhizome of their external manifestations, including the reasons for the endless localization of Earth’s space. § 75. In the previous chapter, we have examined the theory of war and peace, as well as its basic assertions concerning the history of Europe in the 20th century. It remains to consolidate the prognostic potential of the theory and to reveal its possibilities of use in practice. The theory of war and peace allows us to predict events starting from the development of a separate locus of civilization of the Earth to endless localization of mental spaces in the complicating universe. For the consideration of the praxeological aspect, we chose the average – we offer the theoretical basis for the creation of the European Security Strategy. On the one hand, offering the European Security Strategy on the basis of the theory of war and peace, we test the effectiveness and predictive potential of the theory. On the other hand, embodying the provisions of the theory in practice, we offer our answer to the question formulated by Sir Michael Barber: “How does my life help to remove the causes of war?” [Barber, 2009]. In chapter seven, we will do the following: 1. Briefly review the history of the development of the European Security Strategy. 2. Consider the features of the geophilosophy of Europe after the collapse of the USSR (1991–2013). 3. We offer the theoretical basis for the creation of the European Security Strategy.

7.1 A brief history of the development of the European Security Strategy § 76. The European Security Strategy was adopted in December 2003 and became a new stage in the development of the foreign and security policies of the European Union. As follows from the text adopted by the European Parliament, the fundamental idea of the European Strategy is a secure Europe in a better world [A Secure Europe, 2003]. In 2003, the authors of the European Security Strategy prescribed: “Largescale aggression against any member state is now improbable” [A Secure Europe, 2003]. In the strategy, the following top threats to European

The European Security Strategy

151

security were identified as: Terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, state failure, and organized crime. Based on the identified threats, the authors have prescribed the following strategic objectives [A Secure Europe, 2003]: – Addressing the threats (terrorism, proliferation, regional conflicts, etc.). – Building security in our neighbourhood (Balkans, Mediterranean, Southern Caucasus, Middle East). – An international order based on effective multilateralism (international law, key institutions, regional organizations, rulebased international order). Five years later, in December 2008, Javier Solana2 introduced the prepared report on the implementation of the European security strategy, together with the European Commission, to the European Council: “Providing Security in a Changing World.” In the report, the authors have tried to clarify the main threats to European security, because the events clearly were not following the scenario of the European Security Strategy of 2003. It became apparent that the European Security Strategy was not able to predict the actual course of events. In 2008, the main threats to the security of Europe were considered as: Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and organized crime, cyber security, energy security, and climate change [Report, 2008]. Based on the adjusted list of the global challenges and top threats, the following ways to reach stability in Europe and beyond were recommended [Report, 2008]: – Enlargement of the European Union: Turkey, the Western Balkans. – European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP): Ukraine, Georgia, Mediterranean, Middle East. – Security and development nexus. – Piracy. – Combat illicit accumulation and trafficking of SALW and their ammunition, cluster munitions, and landmines. 2

At the time, Javier Solana was Secretary General of the Council of the European Union/the European Union’s High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP).

152

Chapter Seven

§ 77. On June 9 2015, the European Parliament issued the briefing: “Towards a new European security strategy? Assessing the impact of changes in the global security environment” [Towards, 2015]. In the briefing, the brief presentation of the results of analytical work in the field of European security, conducted by three leading international security institutes in Europe: Chatham House in London, the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, was presented. The research focused on the objective analysis of the achievements and shortcomings of the past two versions of the European Security Strategy, as well as [Towards, 2015]: – The changes of the nature of conflicts (hybrid conflicts; leveling the battlefields); unresolved territorial disputes and frozen conflicts; ideological and religious conflicts. – Terrorism – a persistent threat. – New military technologies and strategies: explosive weaponry in highly populated areas; guided missiles, UAVs and armed drones; the use of weapons of mass destruction. – The growth in digital technologies: cyber dependencies and the Internet; cyber technologies for war, targeting and attack; cyber vulnerabilities of the critical infrastructure. – Strategic threats due to climate change. – Maritime security. – The EU’s Eastern neighbourhood: Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova. – The Middle East and North Africa. – Western Balkan security issues. – The “new” Russia. – Sub-Saharan Africa. – Evolution of strategic alliances: the evolution of US strategic interest; BRICS, regional powers in Asia and Latin America. The authors of the analytical work believe that they offer the necessary theoretical basis for the preparation and writing of a new European Security Strategy.

7.2 The features of the geophilosophy of Europe after the collapse of the USSR (1991–2013) § 78. Despite the significant contribution of the European government and public organizations to the comprehension of the European Security Strategy, the author announces the following assertion: the theory of war

The European Security Strategy

153

and peace points out to the obvious fact that currently a regulatory compromise is disturbed in the relationship between the European mental space-aggressors. On the morning of February 27 2014, by order of the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, the Russian Special Forces took the Building of Authority of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Ukraine) under their protection, as a result, in Europe, the first large-scale redistribution of world historical ideas in the 21st century began. Based on the assertions of the theory, this redistribution cannot be stopped. Under the circumstances, the most important thing depends on the new European Security Strategy – will the redrawing of borders, which has already been begun, will turn the space of Europe into “Bloodlands”, or be stopped in Ukraine? In the European Security Strategy of 2008 as a high-level document, there were too many miscalculations. The main ones are the following: 1) the enlargement of the European Union by the limitrophe states; 2) the failures concerning the development and behavior of the Russian Federation in the international arena; 3) the assumption of the war in Ukraine; 4) the attitudes towards refugees. All the events were predicted neither in the edition of 2003 nor of 2008 by the European Security Strategy, although, as we shall see below, they were obvious and easily calculated. In fairness, we note that the miscalculations are observed not only in the European Security Strategy but also in the strategies of other countries and international organizations (blocks, alliances). For example, for the past 13 years, the US national security strategy has been changed three times, and each time the US policy has been changed radically: in 2002 a strategy was put in place as a response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11; in 2010 – for the global economic recession; and in 2015 – for the post-recession, postIraq and Afghanistan, and post-Crimea global security environment [The War, 2015]. The miscalculations in the long-term predictions are observed and in the reports of the large intelligence organizations (e.g., the USA National Intelligence Council) [The World after the Crisis, 2009]), the authoritative international non-governmental organizations [Meadows et al., 1991; Meadows et al., 2007], and others. Such a number of miscalculations in the strategies and long-term predictions indicate a mismatch of the theory to the real course of events. After all, the task of the strategy is to predict by decades rather than years.

154

Chapter Seven

§ 79. In order to understand the miscalculations admitted by European politicians in the European Security Strategy, let us consider the geophilosophy of Europe after the collapse of the USSR (1991–2013). Let’s remember the basics: 1. As we have stated previously (§ 68) the feature of the geophilosophy of Europe in the last century is nonlinear relationships between mental space-aggressors: Great Britain, Germany, Russia and France, for the promotion and strengthening of their worlds of historical ideas in the territories of the limitrophe and other states. 2. As it can be seen from our proposed definition of the theory of war and peace, if in Europe a regulatory compromise is established between the historically formed worlds of historical ideas of mental space-aggressors, then there is peace in Europe (with the exception of local conflicts, which are allowed by the theory). If a regulatory compromise is disturbed, then in Europe the large-scale redrawing of borders of loci as a territory and as the world of historical ideas begins. The lands of Europe turn into “bloodlands”, or the redrawing of borders is carried out as a result of a victory in the informational, economic, hybrid, etc. war (bloodless victory). What features in the development of Europe are found by the methods of geophilosophy after 1991, i.e., after the collapse of the USSR? We highlight the following: 1. After the collapse of the USSR, in the world, a unipolar system prevailed. The world civilization began to develop under the supervision of the sole leader – the United States. In fact, before the 44th US President Barack Obama came to power, the United States was able to cope with this role more or less3. However, from January 20 2009, the US president and his administration rejected the policy of hegemony in the world and focused on solving

3 The Russian-Georgian war of 2008 – the first serious blow to US hegemony in Europe. Although it did not take place in the European area, in this war the Russian Federation has proven its return to the rank of the European mental spaceaggressor, having defended its national interests in the region. (From the recent research, we note the books of Ariel Cohen, Robert E. Hamilton, Svante E. Cornell, Frederick Starr, and others).

The European Security Strategy

155

domestic problems. The Earth’s civilization was deprived of the dominant and controlling force4. 2. After the US’ voluntary refusal to act as a guarantor of the existing world order, the role of regional mental space-aggressors was actualized. Barack Obama was named the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”; in fact, his administration’s policy disturbed a regulatory compromise at the scale of the whole civilization, which led to a new large-scale redrawing of borders of loci as a territory and as the world of historical ideas5. The process of endless localization of the Earth’s surface was actualized with new force. China, the European Union and the Russian Federation began rapidly expanding the borders of their worlds of historical ideas, de-actualizing US influence. A new structure of the world order began to emerge and manifest itself6. 3. At the beginning of the 21st century, taking advantage of the collapse of the USSR and the weakness of the legal successor of the Soviet Union – the Russian Federation – the European Union rushed to expand the borders of its world of historical ideas, taking into its membership the limitrophe states. There was the so-called “fifth" enlargement of the European Union7 by the countries of the Eastern bloc8. 4

The research of Peter Ferrara, Inderjeet Parmar, Linda B. Miller, Mark Ledwidge, Michelle Bentley, Lawrence C. Mayer and others. 5 Awarding the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama reminds us that Mikhail Gorbachev was awarded the same prize in 1990. The paradoxicality of these awards is that the actions of both Gorbachev and Obama provoked the disturbance of a regulatory compromise in the world order in 1990 and 2009 and, as a consequence, led to large-scale redrawing of borders of loci of civilization in Earth’s space. That is, in fact, Gorbachev and Obama with their “peaceful” policies have created the causes for new bloody wars at the scales of the Earth’s civilization and received the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize. It is hard to understand these decisions of the Nobel committee. 6 In this area, we highlight the books: Murat Laumulin, Victor Zheltov, Jósef M. Fiszer, Dale Walton, José María Marín Quemada, Nurit Kliot, and others. 7 On May 1 2004, the EU included: Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia (as well as the Mediterranean island states of Malta and Cyprus); January 1 2007 – Bulgaria and Romania; July 1 2013 – Croatia. 8 The research of Anneli Albi, Dimitry Kochenov, James Wesley Scott, Barbara Lippert, and others.

156

Chapter Seven

4. The European mental space-aggressors: the UK, Germany and France have established close economic relations with the Russian Federation. Especially after Vladimir Putin came to power, European politicians, businessmen, public figures and scientists, charmed by the natural resources of Russia and the idea of turning Russia into a European state (the idea of Paneuropean Union), opened the world of their achievements and developments to the Russians. Just over a decade (from 2000 to 2013), European finance and technology fabulously enriched Russia and returned it to the ranks of mental space-aggressors. Targeted advertising, money and technology almost turned the Russian Federation into the most attractive state for investments in the world9. § 80. Having considered the features of the geophilosophy of Europe in the period from 1991 to 2013, we reveal two fatal mistakes of European politicians. We call them “fatal” because these mistakes (more precisely, miscalculations in the European Security Strategy) have led to the disturbance of a regulatory compromise in Europe at the beginning of the 21st century. Let us consider the first fatal mistake. We formulate it in the following way, breaking all the canons of political science, in the period of 2000– 2013 the European mental space-aggressors: the UK, Germany and France, have made every effort to restore the political power of its direct competitor – the Russian Federation. Even the USA, which is considered the centre of the development of political science, took an active part in this recovery10. In the 16th century, in the treatise “The Prince”, Niccolò Machiavelli wrote: “From this a general rule is drawn which never or rarely fails: that he who is the cause of another becoming powerful is ruined” [Machiavelli, 2006]. For five centuries, this rule, by the efforts of several hundred prominent scientists, was turned into the theory of “balance of power.” On the basis of this theory, all the current international policy is based. 9

The research of Anna Politkovskaya, Richard Pipes, Lilia Shevtsova, Stephen K. Wegren, Richard Sakwa, Pekka Sutela and others. 10 Suffice it to recall how in 2010, with the direct support of Hillary Clinton (at that time the US secretary of state), the Russian company “Rosatom” bought the strategically important American company Uranium One, which owned the majority of the US uranium mines.

The European Security Strategy

157

Why, in respect of the Russian Federation, did European mental spaceaggressors act contrary to history, logic, theory and practice? After all, at the beginning of the 20th century, the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed and remained in history, and at the end of the same century, the Russian Empire collapsed and could forever remain in history. Why was the Russian Empire helped to restore lost power, in contrast to the AustroHungarian Empire? The author believes that there are several causes: political corruption11; lack of understanding of the ontology of war and peace; the predominance of national interests over global (universal); and miscalculations in the European Security Strategy. Now, in 2016, analyzing the events of the past, we ascertain the historical fact that in the period of 2000–2013 the money and technology of the European Union, primarily Germany, led not only to the revival of the Russian Federation as a full European mental space-aggressor, but also to the revival of the imperial ambitions of the ruling circles of Russia. The fact of the revival of the imperial ambitions of the Russian Federation is clearly seen in the change of Russian state ideology at the beginning of the third millennium. Until about 2004 (before the end of the first presidential term of Vladimir Putin12), Russian politics considered the lands of the Russian Federation as a separate island, which in certain periods (cycles) has abducted the territory of Europe. The basis of this ideological paradigm prevailing in the worldview of the Russian ruling elite outlined 11 The first example, let us recall the attitude of the Federal Chancellor of Germany Gerhard Schröder from October 27 1998 to November 2005, towards Russia and, after retirement, he found work rapidly at a managerial position in the gas consortium, in which the Russian company “Gazprom” still dominates. The second example, in 2010, the most critical moment of the transaction of the company Uranium One between the USA and Russia (which owns uranium mines in the United States and beyond), the deal could be derailed because of the prohibition by the US Department of State, Bill Clinton went to Moscow, where for his few short speeches he got half a million dollars. Almost simultaneously, Clinton’s charitable foundation got tens of millions of dollars of donations from the company Uranium One. As a result of the political corruption, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (2009–2013) insisted on the deal. 12 On December 31 1999, in connection with the early retirement of Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin became the acting president of the Russian Federation. From May 7 2000 to May 7 2008 (two terms of 4 years) as well as from May 7 2012 to the present time, Vladimir Putin is the President of the Russian Federation.

158

Chapter Seven

the ideas of Vadim Tsymbursky. Tsymbursky offered the new markers of Russian cultural identity, which formed the basis of the Russian ideology of the period of 1995–2005, instead of the de-actualized ideas of socialism and communism. According to Tsymbursky, Russia is an island in the heart of the land. The giant Russian island is on the continent with other ethnic inclusions, with blurred but impregnable borders [Tsymbursky, 1999]. The idea of Tsymbursky – “the Island of Russia” is the idea of abandonment of Russia, turning the domestic problems and experiences, self-imposed isolation from the aggressive and alien into the external world. This idea emphasised a fundamental change in the foreign policy of Russia, the rejection of imperial ambitions, the role of the “gendarme of Europe”13. The new post-Soviet ideology, formed under President Boris Yeltsin, marked the end of the era of Russia as a European and world mental space-aggressor, and the beginning of a new stage in its history – the rethinking of its significance and role in the history of civilization. However, the fatal mistake of the European politicians changed everything – Russia as a mental space-aggressor was not restored, but the political elites of Germany, France and Great Britain returned the former power, the political and economic importance of Russia into the world. Through common effort, the leading European mental spaces of Europe helped their direct competitor and recent opponent to get out of the deep political, economic, and social crisis. Despite the fact that the Russian Federation is the only European country that has continued to maintain subversive (propaganda, terrorism, financing of terrorism, etc.) and military operations within its locus and beyond14, the European mental space-

13 The Russian Empire got the nickname “gendarme of Europe” due to the ambiguous foreign policy of Nicholas I in Europe during the suppression of the European revolutions of 1848 and, above all, the Hungarian uprising that broke out in March that year. 14 From 1991 to the present time, the Russian Federation was engaged in military activity against other countries and peoples (mental spaces): - From November 1975 to November 1992: fighting in Angola. - From September to November 1992: military activity in the Republic of Tajikistan. - From February 1993 to December 1997: military activity in the Republic of Tajikistan.

The European Security Strategy

159

aggressors invested billions of euros in the Russian Federation in exchange for cheap raw materials (mainly gas, oil, timber, minerals), and opened access to the latest technology, including the military15. Thanks to money and technologies, Russia moved from the ideology of isolation to the offensive ideology of a mental space-aggressor, which expanded the borders of its locus as a territory and as the world of historical ideas by the ways of war and peace. In 2015, the extremely popular ideologist of the Russian Federation Alexander Dugin announced a new offensive Russian ideology: “Our aim is the liberation of Europe from the Atlantic occupiers, the same ones who led to disaster in Kyiv and handed over power to a criminal junta. Our aim is a great continental liberation struggle, which will be the battle for Europe in the future. We will have to liberate Europe from the American presence – and all of it, not only a central part but also western” [Dugin, 2015: 17]. For the European politicians who continued to believe in the “United Europe” or “democratic Russia”, Dugin said: “You called us “the gendarme of Europe.” Yes, you are right. We are gendarmes. We provide order, law, morality, and security. We punish criminals and enfetter rebels. We are on guard of a healthy family and justice. We defend the culture and spirit. Faith and morals. Identity and traditions. We are holy gendarmes” [Dugin, 2015: 17]. The complete rethink of the role of the Russian Federation in the history of Europe and the world by the ruling Russian elite took place in the period between the two wars of conquest against Georgia16 and Ukraine17. The world of historical ideas of the Russian Federation from self-isolation proceeded to open external aggression – “the liberation of Europe” and the

- From December 1994 to December 1996: military activity in the Chechen Republic and the adjacent territories of the Russian Federation that were related to the conflict zone. - From August 1999 to the present time: military activity, the counter-terrorist operations in the North Caucasus region. - From May 2000 to December 2000: military activity in Ethiopia. - From 8 to August 22 2008: military activity in Georgia. - From February 27 2014 to the present time: military activity in Ukraine. - From September 2015 to the present time: military activity in Syria. 15 This issue has been actively studied. We highlight the books of Anna Politkovskaya, Dmitriy Travin, Aglaya Snetkov, Robert Horvath, Richard Sakwa and many others. 16 From 8 to August 22 2008. 17 From February 27 2014 to the present.

160

Chapter Seven

expansion of the borders of the “Russian world.” The European security system is now faced with a new challenge – the aggressive policy of Putin’s totalitarian regime. The reincarnation of the Russian Federation from a mental space-victim (during the reign of Boris Yeltsin) to a mental space-aggressor (during the reign of Vladimir Putin), which from 2014 to the present time18 is the primary destructive and destabilizing force in Europe and in the world, is the roughest and, even, most criminal, miscalculation in the European Security Strategy. § 81. Let us consider the second fatal mistake of the European politicians over the last twenty years, which has led to a disturbance of a regulatory compromise in Europe. We formulate it as follows: at the beginning of the 21st century, the union of the world of historical ideas of mental spaceaggressors and the limitrophe states into a single space – the European Union is a strategic miscalculation that disturbs a regulatory compromise in Europe. From the point of view of the theory of war and peace, the actions of the European politicians at the beginning of the 21st century are perceived as the intentional destruction of the conditions of a regulatory compromise in Europe, which was established after the collapse of the Soviet Union. How else can we explain the contradictory nature of the actions: on the one hand, the European Union member states in the period of 2000–2013 intentionally restored the Russian Federation as a mental space-aggressor, investing billions and helping to develop the latest technologies, including the military, while, on the other hand in the same period, the European Union expanded the borders of its world of historical ideas through the limitrophe states, which were a little over 10 years ago in the world of historical ideas of Russia (the former USSR)? The complete absence of logical behavior in European politics was it was necessary either to isolate Russia, or to invest billions not in the economy of Russia but in the economy of the limitrophe states, by helping them to rise to the level of the economies of European Union countries, or else to restore Russia, but not to provoke it by the expansion of borders through the limitrophe states that Russia always intended to have.

18

At the time of writing the book – August 2016 (and according to the prediction of the author, at least for the next decade).

The European Security Strategy

161

The EU’s policy on the enlargement process after the collapse of the Soviet Union was a “fatal” mistake in the European Security Strategy, not only because of the opposition to this enlargement from the Russian Federation. The problem lies in the rhizome – in the plane of understanding of the difference between mental space-aggressors and mental space-victims, which include all the limitrophe states. A mental space-aggressor is distinguished from the limitrophe state by the factors of the macro environment: demographic; economic; political; legal; sociocultural; environmental and geographic; and technological. It is these factors when making significant decisions at the scale of Europe (and the world) ensure the autonomy and independence of the political position of a mental space-aggressor, and the indecision and ambivalence of the limitrophe policy. The domestic and foreign policy of the limitrophe states is influenced by mental space-aggressors, and this is their main difference. Uniting the worlds of historical ideas of mental space-aggressors and the limitrophe states in the single European space was no longer relevant in 1991, after the collapse of the bipolar world order system. Since 2009, when the unipolar (monopolar) system of the world collapsed and sharply increased the role of regional mental space-aggressors, the enlargement of the European Union was a direct threat to European security. At present, four European mental space-aggressors (the UK, Germany, France, the Russian Federation) and the USA have a direct impact on the policy of the limitrophe states. And if we consider that the European Union consists of mental space-aggressors, the limitrophe states and the self-sufficient loci of civilization (e.g., the Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Spain, etc.), then the enlargement of the European Union at the beginning of the 21st century through the new limitrophe states was with much more uncertainty in the domestic and foreign policy than the limitrophe states that were admitted into the European Union earlier, it is an action aimed at the disturbance of a regulatory compromise in Europe. This is a miscalculation in the European security strategy, which led to de-actualization of the idea of “United Europe” and undermining of the foundations of the European Union as an efficient and prospective international organization. § 82. The two fatal mistakes of European politicians that were found in the period from 1991 to 2013 by methods of geophilosophy, the third mistake is added which was made by the governments of leading European countries in the period from 2015 to the present time. Let us formulate this mistake as follows: placing the population, which espouses a completely different culture (the world of historical ideas) in a space of its world of

162

Chapter Seven

historical ideas is equivalent to actualize the third cause of the endless localization of Earth’s space (the third cause of war), when the sacramental worlds of historical ideas of the several mental spaces compete for the same locus, as a territory (§ 45–46). It is like inciting a conflict intentionally between the national idea and alien culture, which at any moment can actualize nationalist sentiment and escalate into national pogroms, massacres, civil war, etc. The multiculturalism policy has nothing to do with the mass migration of one culture into the space of another culture. For example, the flow of refugees from Syria to Germany can be compared with the seizure of space (or a part of the space) of one locus of civilization by another locus. This seizure (even if it was accomplished as an act of hospitality and charity on the part of Germany) must be accompanied by numerous destructive processes because we are talking about the need for material and virtual manifestations of one mental space, and completely unprepared for these manifestations of the world of historical ideas of another mental space. The deeper the differences between two manifestations of mental space, the more possible the escalation of a conflict in extreme forms: violence, terror, and war. From our point of view, mass migrations of an alien culture in Europe are a form of military actions aimed at destabilizing the situation in the region, and making political preferences. If we analyze the events against the background of which migration took place, then to understand what actions and what countries have caused migration, to which territories the flows of refugees were directed, we have every reason to believe that the Russian Federation carries out a full-scale aggression across Europe to gain new material and virtual spaces. Thus, the fatal mistakes of the European politicians at the beginning of the 21st century have led to a disturbance of a regulatory compromise in Europe. The following disturbances were: the annexation of the Crimea; war in Ukraine; the contradictions within the European Union because of the sanctions against the Russian Federation; the refugee problem; terrorist acts in Europe (Paris, Brussels and others); the results of the referendums in the Netherlands and the UK, as well as other shocks that are a chain of regular events that indicate the beginning of redrawing of borders of loci as territories and as the world of historical ideas in Europe. This redrawing is carried out by new technologies of war: a hybrid war, political

The European Security Strategy

163

corruption, informational attacks, nationalist sentiment, migration flows, terrorism, blackmail, insinuations, incitement, etc.

7.3 A new theoretical framework of the European Security Strategy § 83. On 27 February 2014, the Russian Federation regularly and predictably started the first large-scale redrawing of borders in the material and virtual spaces of Europe and the world in the 21st century. Why has the Russian government decided to take this step? In our opinion, in addition to the fatal mistakes of European politicians, the gravest miscalculations in the European Security Strategy, political corruption, etc., there was another factor that contributed to it. Starting from Hans Morgenthau, many representatives of the school of “political realism” considered national historical memory as the most important factor in continuous and nonlinear complication of loci of civilization. If we investigate the facts of history impartially, we see that the Russian Empire almost every century initiated bloody redrawing of borders in Europe. The obsession: “Moscow is the Third Rome” laid the foundation of the Russian educational system and state ideology, for centuries served as a constant source of its imperial ambitions and cause of bloody redrawing of borders in Europe and the world. The redrawing of borders in Europe, started by Russia on 27 February 2014, cannot be stopped in the short term. As the analysis of the preceding three large-scale redrawing of borders in Europe, this process continues for about 5–10 years. As a result of the revitalization process of endless localization, the primary problem facing European politicians is to not allow the lands of Europe to turn into “bloody lands.” For this purpose, it is necessary to focus on the achievement of two main objectives: 1. Increase the efficiency of educational technologies, which on the one hand need to lay the foundation of worldview in the rising generations, i.e. stereotypes and a setting of peace, tolerance and good neighbourliness, on the other, identify mentalities that are apt to aggressive manifestations. 2. Eliminate the causes of the war and restore a regulatory compromise between the interests of the four leading European mental space-aggressors: Great Britain, Germany, Russia and

164

Chapter Seven

France, as well as the interests of the United States, the limitrophe states, and other self-sufficient countries in Europe. § 84. In our view, any security strategy (both global and regional) should consist of a theoretical part and practical recommendations. Let us consider the theoretical foundations of the security strategy: 1. Our developed theory of war and peace determines a single objective for any security strategy that is a maintenance of a regulatory compromise in the continuously and nonlinearly complicating world. It should be emphasized that it is not conservation, but namely maintenance of a regulatory compromise, because according to the first and second assertions of the theory, mental spaces and their manifestations are complicated nonlinearly and continuously. Therefore, to maintain a regulatory compromise in the conditions of a continuously and nonlinearly complicating mental space of the Earth and its manifestations, it is actually impossible. It can only be supported by predicting, and a timely response to changes in the rhizome of a mental space and its manifestations. 2. The theory of war and peace allows us to objectively identify the range of problems facing the security strategy. Indeed, endless localization of Earth’s space cannot be stopped, because it is a natural process caused by the universal laws of evolution. However, the professionally written security strategy may well prevent the war as a way to extend the possibilities of a locus of civilization and keep the conditions of peace effectively. It follows that the security strategy should have specific objectives for the prevention of the causes of war and limit of the possibilities of aggressive manifestations on the part of any mental space at the scale of the Earth. 3. The theory of war and peace reveals the ways of the means by which it is possible to maintain a regulatory compromise in a mental space. Mainly, the ways and means are concentrated in educational technologies, the impact of which is precisely directed to the formation and maintenance of certain stereotypes and sets in a rhizome of mental space. The aggressive or peaceful direction of the manifestations of the active principle of a mental space in the material and virtual worlds depends mainly on the direction of the stereotypes and sets that are laid in a complicating mentality and

The European Security Strategy

165

mental space by educational technologies in the first twenty years of ontogenesis, as well as in the course of lifelong learning. Thus, the goal of any security strategy is a maintenance of a regulatory compromise between continuously and nonlinearly complicating loci of civilization; the objectives of the security strategy should be aimed at eliminating the causes of war and limiting the possibilities for aggressive manifestations on the part of any mental space-aggressor; the ways and means of the security strategy are concentrated on the potential of educational technologies. § 85. We will clarify the list of objectives of the security strategy. From the theory of war and peace, as well as its basic assertions, it follows: The first objective of the security strategy should include the complex measures for the identification, registration and organization of the system of preventive work with mentalities, in which the pathologies in the structure and function of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness are clearly expressed that refract the active principle (as natural force) in aggressive manifestations (§ 36). We know19 that, for objective reasons in each new generation of a mental space, there are about 1 percent of mentalities apt to manifestations of aggression. No less a danger to society represented by mentalities formed under the influence of educational technologies by the stereotypes of aggression and aggressive sets. In this regard, it is necessary to develop the methodology for revealing not only those mentalities but also systems of education aimed at the formation of the stereotypes of aggression and aggressive sets in a mental space. The improvements of technologies, tactics and strategies of war, terrorism, organised crime, piracy, cybercrime, and many others are the manifestations of internal creative potentials of mentalities with the pathologies in the structure and functions of the brain, or with the stable stereotypes and sets of aggressiveness. To eliminate the first cause of the war in the security strategy must be included:

19

The question we considered in § 38 and § 43.

Chapter Seven

166

a)

The methodology of identification of mentalities and mental spaces with the pathologies in the structure and functions of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness; as well as public (or private) educational technologies and ideology, which are aimed at the formation of the stereotypes of aggression and aggressive sets in the continuously and nonlinearly complicating mental space and its manifestations. b) The methodology of observation for such mentalities and mental spaces, and the control of their manifestations. c) The complex of preventive, legal, power and other interventions that reduce or direct the manifestations of aggression of a mentality and a mental space to the mainstream social security. The second objective of the security strategy should include the complex measures ensuring control over the direction of the physicochemical, predisposing, provoking and supporting factors of the external environment that have a direct impact on the manifestations of a mental space in ontogeny. We considered this issue in § 30 and § 39–42. It is important to develop and use the methods that would allow: a) Identification of the physicochemical, predisposing, provoking and supporting factors of the external environment, aimed at the formation of the stereotypes of aggression and aggressive sets in a mental space. b) Effective influence on environmental factors, changing their direction from aggressive manifestations to the ethics of good neighbourliness and peace. c) The efficient use of environmental factors for the formation of stereotypes of peace, collaboration and tolerance towards other cultures in a mental space. The third objective of the security strategy should include the complex measures of prediction and solution of international (interstate) conflicts. As we showed in chapter four, neglect of the third cause of the war (§ 44– 47) turns into large-scale border changes of loci of civilization, which are often accompanied by massive loss of life and destruction. The security strategy should include the methods of de-actualization of a conflict and its subsequent decision. The fourth objective of the security strategy should be aimed at eliminating the fourth cause of war (§ 47–48) and include:

The European Security Strategy

167

a) The methodology for assessing the relevance of the world of historical ideas in a locus of civilization. b) The prediction of competition from other worlds of historical ideas and the threat of conflict. c) The calculation of behaviours of a mental space in the case of deactualization of the world of historical ideas. The fifth objective of the security strategy should provide the complex measures involving the peaceful extension of comfortable conditions for the full realization of its internal creative potentials by a mental space. Thus, the objectives of the security strategy should not only suppress the causes of war and aggressive manifestations of mental spaces, but also provide endless localization of Earth’s space by peaceful means. § 86. Having understood the theoretical foundations of the security strategy, we will offer our practical recommendations for the European Security Strategy. The goal of the European Security Strategy is maintenance of a regulatory compromise in continuously and nonlinearly complicating international relations in Europe. A regulatory compromise in Europe is reached by: – Reaching compromise between the interests of all European states. – Mutual respect for the borders of loci as a territory and the world of historical ideas. – Eliminating the causes of war. – The collective effort to stem aggressive manifestations on the part of any European state (or the state of any other part of the world, directed against the European state). – The direction of the physicochemical, predisposing, provoking and supporting factors of the external environment on the formation of stereotypes of peace, collaboration and tolerance towards other cultures. To achieve this goal, the European Security Strategy should be aimed at making the following objectives:

168

Chapter Seven

1. Identification, monitoring (control) and the impact on mental spaces, the educational policy and state ideology that are aimed at the formation of stereotypes of aggression and aggressive sets. To perform this objective, it is necessary: – To develop and improve the methods of detection and suppression of educational technologies aimed at the formation of stereotypes of aggression and aggressive sets. – The creation, financing, legal and force support services that identify, control, and influence mental spaces apt to aggressive manifestations; giving them necessary instructions and powers. – The implementation of the effective methods and technologies for the use of the physicochemical, predisposing, provoking and supporting factors of the external environment in order to form the stereotypes of peace, collaboration and tolerance towards other cultures in mental spaces located in the European territory (but not only there!). 2. The development and implementation of effective educational technologies, providing the most complete and socially significant realization of the internal creative potentials of a mental space in the material and virtual spaces of a locus of civilization. 3. The identification and localization of potential sources of conflicts in Europe; the development of methods and special services for deactualization of a conflict and its subsequent removal. 4. The monitoring of existing loci of civilization and the worlds of historical ideas in Europe and beyond, posing a threat to Europe. 5. The development of methods and the creation of services of deactualization of the potentially dangerous worlds of historical ideas in Europe and actualization of the perspective and profitable ideas for European countries in the strategic plan. 6. The search of new spaces on the Earth and in the universe for the realization of the internal creative potential by the European mental space.

The European Security Strategy

169

Conclusion of chapter seven § 87. Thus, in chapter seven, we performed the three objectives: 1. We briefly reviewed the history of the development of the European Security Strategy. There were the two main stages: – In December 2003, the European Security Strategy was adopted by the European Council. – In December 2008, Javier Solana introduced the resulting document of the European Security Strategy: “Providing Security in a Changing World” to the European Council. Currently, the theoretical basis for the third document of the European Security Strategy is being developed. 2. We examined the features of the geophilosophy of Europe after the collapse of the USSR (1991–2013) and found the three fatal mistakes of the European politicians, which led to a disturbance of a regulatory compromise in Europe at the beginning of the 21st century: – Breaking all the canons of political science, in the period of 2000– 2013 the European mental space-aggressors: the UK, Germany and France have made every effort to restore the political power and imperial ambitions of their direct competitor – the Russian Federation. – Uniting the worlds of historical ideas of mental space-aggressors and the limitrophe states in the single space i.e. the European Union. – The placement of thousands of migrants, which espouses a completely different culture (the world of historical ideas) in a space of its world of historical ideas. 3. We offered a theoretical basis and practical recommendations for the creation of the European Security Strategy. The author believes that the European Security Strategy should include a clear goal – the maintenance of a regulatory compromise in the continuously and nonlinearly complicating world, as well as objectives aimed at eliminating the causes of war and limiting the possibilities for the manifestations of aggression on the part of any mental space.

CONCLUSION

In the book “The Theory of War and Peace: The Geophilosophy of Europe”, the author consistently solved the six objectives: 1. He has examined the three main areas of the research, the results of which form the theoretical and empirical basis of the theories of war and peace: – In religion, ethics, philosophy and psychology, as comprehension of the normative-evaluative categories of good and evil. – In philosophy, political science, sociology and jurisprudence, in the theories of international relations. – In history, fiction as well as documentary, memoir, reference, technical literature on the subject of “war” and “peace.” 2. The author has formulated the purpose of writing the book, the subject and object of the research, and decided on the methodology and axiomatics of the theory. The purpose of writing the book is the creation of the scientific theory of war and peace, and its philosophical comprehension according to Plato’s line. To investigate the ontology of war and peace, the author has chosen the methodology of geophilosophy. Based on the methods of geophilosophy, the author was able to identify the subject and object of the research of the ontology of war and peace. The subject is a locus of civilization (the center of culture), and the object is the Earth’s civilization that is apt to endless localisation. Moreover, the subject and object of the research are considered as a mental space connected with the fundamental scientific and philosophical theories about the past, present, and future of man at the scales of the Earth and the Cosmos. The methodology of geophilosophy allowed the author to formulate two axioms, which he further used for the creation of the theory of war and peace:

172

Conclusion

1. A separate locus of civilization and man have a common rhizome – an evolving mentality. 2. Evolution is the continuous and nonlinear complication of the structure of matter, types of interaction and environments that are subordinate to the three factors and two universal causes for any material organization at the scales of the universe. 3. Using the methodology of geophilosophy, the author has formulated the theory of war and peace, as well as its basic assertions: a) Based on the methodology of geophilosophy, the author has formulated the definition of war and peace. War is a violent penetration of one mental space into a locus of another mental space, which entails substantial changes in its manifestations. Peace is a coordinated interaction between mental spaces that leads at a minimum to respect, at a maximum to the multiplication of the manifestations of each other. b) The author has established the causes of endless localisation of Earth’s space. They were the causes of war and peace: – The accumulation of mentalities with the pathologies in the structure and functions of the neural ensembles of subconscious and consciousness in mental spaces, which refract the natural active principle in aggressive manifestations, leads to war. – The physicochemical, predisposing, provoking and supporting factors of the external environment that have a direct impact on the manifestations of a mental space in ontogeny contribute to war. These factors not only promote the abnormal development of brain functioning, but they also form the stereotypes of aggression and aggressive sets in other mentalities of a mental space. – The borders of a locus as the world of historical ideas often extend beyond a locus as a territory and come into conflict with the ideas that were originated by another mental space at the scale of this territory. It turns out that the sacramental worlds of historical ideas of the several mental spaces compete for the same locus, as a territory. – De-actualization of the world of historical ideas, around which the multi-ethnic structure of a mental space is united, leads to actualization of the world of historical ideas of the national

The Theory of War and Peace: The Geophilosophy of Europe

173

minorities – internal ethnic conflicts, civil war, and the collapse of a mental space. – The comfortable condition for the full realization of its internal creative potentials by a mental space is a condition of integration and cooperation with minimum risk to itself and its manifestations. That is why mental spaces seek various forms of peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial collaboration. c) The theory of war and peace is formulated as follows: war and peace in continuous and nonlinear complication of the universe are the manifestations of a mental space by which a regulatory compromise between opposing forces is achieved: the active principle and natural selection (or a complicating structure of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness and the environmental conditions). War and peace are the ways to reach a compromise between the complicating needs of a mental space and the possibilities of their satisfaction, between a proclaimed idea that unites a mental space, and the possibility of its realization. From the theory of war and peace follows the five assertions: – Endless localisation of Earth’s space is a natural process based on the universal factors and the causes of evolution. – With complication of the structure and functions of a mental space, its manifestations are also complicated, including the ways of war and achieving peace. – War and peace are two basic ways of expanding possibilities of a locus of civilization. – Aggression of a mental space has a tendency to increase sharply with the growing possibilities of its application. – The role of a leader in the choice by a mental space of war or peace is determinative. 4. The author has offered the philosophy of war and peace: a) Using the examples for the comparison of Plato’s idea of “About the unity of good and evil”; Cicero’s and Hegel’s ideas of “War is a necessity of the world”; Machiavelli’s idea of “Equilibrium (the balance) of power” and “The role of the ruler’s personality in the destiny of the state” with the results of the research in neurosciences, the author showed a direct dependence of the degree

174

Conclusion

of the development of theories in the humanities on the level of the systematization of the research in neurophilosophy. b) The author has highlighted the importance of further comprehension of the philosophy of war in terms of the philosophy of peace. The urgency of this problem is caused not only by the prospect of possible control over the process of endless localisation of Earth’s space, but also the probability of space wars. c) The author has tried to prove another key thesis of the research that war and peace are a prerogative of educational technologies. 5. The author has examined the main assertions and prognostic potential of the theory of war and peace according to the facts of European history of the 20th and early 21st century. 6. The author has offered a new theoretical basis and practical recommendations for the creation of the European Security Strategy. The author believes that the European Security Strategy should include a clear goal – the maintenance of a regulatory compromise in the continuously and nonlinearly complicating world, as well as objectives aimed at eliminating the causes of war, and limiting the possibilities for manifestations of aggression on the part of any mental space.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 2014 Crisis in Ukraine. Perspectives, Reflections, International Reverberations. Editors by Karol Kujawa and Valeriy Morkva. ASLAN Publishing House, 2016. A Secure Europe in a Better World. European Security Strategy. Brussels, 12 December 2003. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf Adorno, Theodor. The Authoritarian Personality (Studies in Prejudice). Moscow: Serebrenue Niti, 2001. Affaires étrangères: quel bilan pour Laurent Fabius? In Le Monde, 10.02.2016. http://www.lemonde.fr/international/video/2016/02/10/affairesetrangeres-quel-bilan-pour-laurentfabius_4862989_3210.html?xtmc=fabius&xtcr=17 Aggression and War: Their Biological and Social Bases. Edited by Jo Groebel and Robert A. Hinde. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Alexandrovsky, Yuri. Boundary Mental Disorders. Moscow: Medicine, 2000. Alexievich, Svetlana. War’s Unwomanly Face. Moscow: Time, 2008. —. Secondhand Time: The Last of the Soviets. Kyiv: Dukn i Litera, 2016. Allen, John and Mark Nelson. Space Biospheres. Moscow: Progress, 1991. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Moscow: Kuchkovo Pole, 2001. Anderson, Jonathan. Ecology for Environmental Sciences: Biosphere, Ecosystems, and Man. Leningrad: Gidrometeoizdat, 1985. Anokhin, Konstantin and Tatyana Chernigovskaya. Mirror for the Brain. V Mire Nauki. 5, 2008: 68-73. Aquinas, Thomas. The Summa Theologica. New Advent, 2008. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/index.html Arendt, Hannah. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Viking Press, 1965. Aristotle. Policy. Kyiv: Osnovu, 2005. Aron, Raymond. Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations. Kyiv: Universe, 2000.

176

Bibliography

Asimov, Isaac, and William Boyd. Races and People. The Gene Mutation and Human Evolution. Moscow: Tsentrpoligraf, 2005. Aslund, Anders. Ukraine: What Went Wrong and How to Fix It? Washington: Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2015. Audergon, Arlene. The War Hotel: Psychological Dynamics in Violent Conflict. Moscow: Enigma, 2008. Augustine of Hippo. Confession. Moscow: Dar, 2007. http://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Avrelij_Avgustin/ispoved/ Bandura, Albert. Principles of Behavior Modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969. Baraboi, Wilen. Ionizing Radiation in our Lives. Moscow: Nauka, 1991. Barber, Michael. Brief Remarks on Education and the Causes of War. Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences. 12 December 2009. http://www.eduwonk.com/BarberMosccommDec%2009.pdf Barefoot, John. Developments in the Measurement of Hostility. In Hostility, Coping, and Health. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association, 1992: 13-31. Baron, Robert, and Deborah Richardson. Aggression. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2001. Baudrillard, Jean. The Spirit of Terrorism. The Gulf War Did Not Take Place. Moscow: RIPOL, 2016. Bazaluk, Oleg. The Universe: Living and Intelligent Matter (The Historical-Philosophical and Natural-Science Analysis on Basis of the New Cosmological Concept). Dnepropetrovsk: Porogi, 2005. —. Philosophy of Education on Basis of the New Cosmological Concept. Kyiv: Condor 2010. —. Space Travels — Traveling Mentality. Kyiv: KNT, 2012. —. The War in Ukraine. Report from the Burning of Kiev. Two Bloody Days in February. Kyiv: ISPC, 2014. —. The Theory of Evolution: From a Space Vacuum to Neural Ensembles and Moving Forward. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016. —. The Cosmic Philosophy: the Place of Human at the Scale of Earth and Cosmos. Chapter One. In Philosophy and Cosmology, Vol. 16. Kyiv: ISPC, 2016a: 28-42. —. Corruption in Ukraine: Rulers’ Mentality and the Destiny of the Nation, Geophilosophy of Ukraine. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016. Bell, Daniel, and Vladislav Inozemtsev. Epoha razobschennosti. Moscow: Center for Research on Post-Industrial Society, 2007.

The Theory of War and Peace: The Geophilosophy of Europe

177

Berg, Raisa, and Sergei Davidenkov. Heredity and Hereditary Human Diseases. Leningrad: Nauka, 1971. Bergson, Henri. The Two Sources of Morality and Religion. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977. Berkowitz, Leonard. Aggression: Its Causes, Consequences, and Control. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993. Belcher, Jason S. Aftermath: Rebuilding Global Security after a Century of Warfare. Post Hill Press, 2014. Bhugra, Dinesh. The Global Prevalence of Schizophrenia. PLoS Med. 2005 May; 2(5): e151. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1140960/ Bismarck, Otto von. Thoughts and Memories. In 3 volumes. Moscow: OGIZ, 1940. Bliokh, Ivan. Future War in Its Technical, Economic and Political Aspects. St. Petersburg: Printing I.A. Efron, 1898. Borovik, Artem. A Russian in the US Army. Moscow: RIA, 1989. Boulding, Kenneth. Conflict and Defence: A General Theory. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962. Bourdieu, Pierre. Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. St. Petersburg: Aletheia, 2001. Braudel, Fernand. Grammar of Civilizations. Moscow: Ves Mir, 2008. Brzezinski, Zbigniew. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Lviv-Ivano-Frankivsk: Lily-HB, 2000. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Alastair Smith, Randolph M. Siverson, and James D. Morrow. The Logic of Political Survival. MIT Press, 2003. Buryak, Victor. The Global Civil Society and the Network Revolutions. Simferopol: DIAYPI 2011. Butler, Judith. The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection. Kharkov: XTGI, 2002. Camus, Albert. The Rebel. Philosophy. Policy. Art. Moscow: Politizdat, 1990. Carr, Edward Hallett. The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919-1939. New York: Harper Collins, 1964. Chicherin, Boris. Political Thinkers of Ancient and Modern World. Moscow: Gardariki, 2001. Chizhevsky, Alexander. The Terrestrial Echo of Solar Storms. Moscow: Musl, 1976. —. Space Pulse of Life: The Earth In The Embrace of The Sun. Moscow: Musl, 1995. Chomsky, Noam. Language and Thought. Moscow: Moscow State University Press, 1972.

178

Bibliography

—. The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo. Moscow: Praxis, 2002. Choudhry, Sujit. Bridging comparative politics and comparative constitutional law: Constitutional design in divided societies. In Constitutional Design for Divided Societies: Integration or Accommodation? Oxford University Press, 2008: 3-40. Christopher, Paul. The Ethics of War and Peace: An Introduction to Legal and Moral Issues. 3rd Edition. New Jersey: Pearson, 2003. Churchill, Winston. The Second World War. (3 books). Moscow: Military Publishing, 1991. Cialdini, Robert, Douglas Kenrick and Steven Neuberg. Social Psychology. Understand Others to Understand Ourselves! Aggression. St. Petersburg: Praym-Evroznak, 2002. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. De Officiis. Ɍranslated with an Introduction and Notes by Andrew P. Peabody. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1887. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/cicero-on-moral-duties-de-officiis Clausewitz, Carl von. On War. Moscow: Eksmo, 2007. https://vk.com/doc-29524660_95601680?hash=3c0bf71973705f0fa8 &dl=e87da65bd55b7764ce Collins, Randall. Prediction in Macrosociology: The Case of the Soviet Collapse. In American Journal of Sociology. 1995. Vol. 100. N 6 (May). P. 1552-1593. Cooper, John Milton, Jr. Woodrow Wilson: A Biography. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009. Creveld, Martin van. The Transformation of War: The Most Radical Reinterpretation of Armed Conflict Since Clausewitz. Moscow: Alpina Business Books, 2005. Curzon, George. The place of India in the Empire. London: J. Murray, 1909. Czuperski, Maksymilian, Eliot Higgins, Alina Polyakova and Damon Wilson. Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine. Washington: Atlantic Council, 2015. Danilova, Nina and Alevtina Krylovɚ. Physiology of Higher Nervous Activity. Moscow: Moscow State University Press, 1989. Danilova, Nina. Psychophysiology. Moscow: Aspect Press, 2000. De Landa, Manuel. War in the Age of Intelligent Machines. New York: Zone Books, 1991. Deleuze, Gilles. The Logic of Sense. London: Athlone Press, 1990. Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. What is Philosophy? Trans. Graham Burchell and Hugh Tomlinson. London: Verso, 1994.

The Theory of War and Peace: The Geophilosophy of Europe

179

Dennett, Daniel. Kinds of Minds: Towards an Understanding of Consciousness. Moscow: Idea-Press, 2004. Depth Psychology. Aggression: Psychodynamic Theory and Phenomenology. Edited by Tatiana Yatsenko. Kyiv: Vysha Shkola, 2010. Dodonov, Roman. The Conflict in Eastern Ukraine in the Mirror of Social and Philosophical Reflection. Vinnitsa: Globe Press, 2016. Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Complete Works in twelve volume. Moscow: Pravda, 1982. Dugin, Alexander. Ukraine: My War. Geopolitical Diary. Moscow: Tsentrpoligraf, 2015. Durham, William H. Resource Competition and Human Aggression, Part I: A Review of Primitive War. In The Quarterly Review of Biology, vol. 51 (1976): 385–415. Elias, Norbert. The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations. St. Petersburg: Universitskaya Kniga, 2001. Ellul, Jacques. The Political Illusion. Moscow: Nota Bene, 2003. Elster, Jon. The Cement of Society: A Study of Social Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Erasmus, Desiderius. The Complaint of Peace. Translated from the Querela Pacis (A.D. 1521) of Erasmus. Chicago: Open Court, 1917. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/erasmus-the-complaint-of-peace Eriksen, Thomas. Tyranny of the Moment: Fast and Slow Time in the Information Age. London: Pluto Press, 2001. Eysenck, Hans, and Michael Eysenck. The Study of the Human Psyche. Moscow: Eksmo-Press, 2001. Fastovtsov, Gregory, Alexander Reznik, Olga Savina and Victor Vasilevsky. Clinical-Psychopathological Prerequisites of Criminal Violence in Veterans of Local Wars. In Social and Clinical Psychiatry. Volume 17, Issue. 3, 2007: 20-25. Faust, August. The Philosophy of War. Munich, 1942. In Leaderism philosophy. Readings on vozhdevedeniyu edited by Vladimir Avdeev. Moscow: White Alva, 2006: 285-297. Flathman, Richard E. Thomas Hobbes: Skepticism, Individuality, and Chastened Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002. Forsyth, Fiona. Cicero: Defender of the Republic. New York: Rosen Publishing Group, 2003. Fotion, Nicholas, Boris Kashnikov, and Joanne K. Lekea. Terrorism. The New World Disorder. New York: Continuum, 2007. Fotion, Nicholas. War and Ethics: A New Just War Theory. Bloomsbury Academic, 2008.

180

Bibliography

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Moscow: AD MARGINEM, 1999. Frank, Philipp. Einstein – His Life and Times. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1947. Frankl, Viktor. Man's Search for Meaning. Moscow: Progress, 1990. Freud, Sigmund. Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. New York: Boni and Liveright, 1922. Frith, Chris. Making Up the Mind: How the Brain Creates Our Mental World. Wiley-Blackwell, 2007. Fromm, Erich. The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. Moscow: Republic, 1994. Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. Moscow: AST, 2004. Gaidar, Yegor. Collapse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia. Moscow: Russian Political Encyclopedia, 2006. http://www.yeltsincenter.ru/sites/default/files/gibel-imperii.pdf —. Why did the Soviet Empire Collapsed? Radio “Echo of Moscow”. 2 July 2006a. http://echo.msk.ru/programs/albac/44499/ Giddens, Anthony. Sociology: a Brief but Critical Introduction. London: Macmillan, 1982. —. Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping Our Lives. Moscow: Ves Mir, 2004. Goldberg, Elkhonon. The New Executive Brain: Frontal Lobes in a Complex World. Moscow: Smysl, 2003. Gray, Edwyn. The Killing Time. The U-Boat War 1914-1918. Moscow: Tsentrpoligraf, 2003. Gray, J. Glenn. The Warriors: Reflections on Men in Battle. New York: Bison Books, 1998. Grof, Stanislav. Realms of the Human Unconscious: Observations from LSD. Moscow: MTM, 1994. Gurr, Ted. Why Men Rebel. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2005. Hamori, Jozsef. Long Way to the Human Brain. Moscow: Mir, 1985. Hartmann, Eduard von. Philosophy of the Unconscious. Moscow: KRASAND, 2010. Haytun, Sergei. Nomenclature Against Russia: an Evolutionary Dead End. Moscow: LIBROKOM 2014. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Philosophy of Rights. Moscow: Mysl, 1990. Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Moscow: AD MARGINEM, 1997. —. The Principle of Ground. St. Petersburg: Aletheia, 1999. —. Nietzsche and Emptiness. Moscow: Eksmo, 2006.

The Theory of War and Peace: The Geophilosophy of Europe

181

Hettner, Alfred. Geography. Its History, Nature and Methods. LeningradMoscow: State Publishing House, 1930. Hɺffe, Otfried. Justice: A Philosophical Introduction. Moscow: Praxis, 2007. Hjelle, Larry A. and Daniel J. Ziegler. Personality Theories: Basic Assumptions, Research, and Applications. St. Petersburg: Peter Com, 1999. Hobbes, Thomas. Works in 2 Volumes. Volume 2. Moscow: Mysl, 1991. Hofmeister, Heimo. The Will to War, or the Policy Impotence. Philosophical and Political Treatise. St. Petersburg: Humanitarian Academy, 2006. Holmes, Leslie. Rotten States?: Corruption, Post-Communism, and Neoliberalism. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2006. Horney, Karen. The Neurotic Personality of Our Time. Introspection. Moscow: Progress-Univers, 1993. Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1996. —. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Moscow: “Russian Political Encyclopedia”, 2003. Hume, David. Essays: Moral, Political, and Literary. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1987. Husserl, Edmund. Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy. Volume 1. Moscow: DICK 1999. Iacoboni, Marco. Mirroring People: The Science of Empathy and How We Connect with Others. Moscow: United Press, 2011. Ilyin, Ivan. Path to the Evidence. Moscow: Republic, 1993. Inozemtsev, Vladislav. Broken Civilization. Moscow: Academia, 1999. Joas, Hans and Wolfgang Knöbl. Social Theory: Twenty Introductory Lectures. St. Petersburg: Aletheia, 2011. Jouvenel, Bertrand de. On Power: The Natural History of Its Growth. Moscow: Mysl, 2011. Juenger, Freidrich Georg. The Perfection of Technology. Verlag: Regnery Pub, 1982. Jung, Carl Gustav. The Red Book. W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. —. The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Princeton University Press; 2nd edition, 1981. —. The Undiscovered Self: The Dilemma of the Individual in Modern Society. Signet, 2006. Kaldor Mary. New and Old Wars: Organised Violence in a Global Era. 3rd edition. Cambridge: Polity, 2012.

182

Bibliography

Kalinovska, Olga, Oleg Krishtopa, Eugene Nazarenko, Valentine Trokhimchuk and Daria Fedenko. The Undeclared War. Unknown Facts and Chronicles of the ATO. Kharkiv: KSD, 2015. Kant, Immanuel. Works in Six Volumes. Moscow: Mysl, 1963-1966. Kantor, Maxim. Empire Inside Out: When will Putin's Russia End. Moscow: Algoritm, 2015. Kaplan, Morton. System and Process in International Politics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1957. Kara-Murza, Sergey. Manipulation of consciousness. Kiev: Orɿyani 2000. Kaufman, Harry. Aggression and Altruism. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. Kersnovsky, Anton. The Philosophy of War. Moscow: Publishing house of the Moscow Patriarchate, 2012. Kildyushov, Oleg. 10 Theses on War and Social Order: Preliminary Arguments on the Constitutive Functions of Armed Conflicts. In Russian Sociological Review. 2015. Vol. 14. No 4: 140-149. Knutsen, Torbjørn L. The Rise of Balance-of-Power as an Ordering Institution. Paper presented at: The 6th Pan-European Conference on International Relations University of Turin, Italy 12-15 September 2007. http://www.eisa-net.org/be-bruga/eisa/files/events/turin/KnutsenThe%20Rise2%20of%20Balanceof%20Power%20as%20an%20Orderining%20Institution.pdf Kon, Igor. In Search of the Self. Personality and its Self-Consciousness. Moscow: Politizdat, 1984. —. Cultural Anthropology of Corporal Punishments. Corporal Punishments of Children. In “Voprosy Philosophii”, 9, 2011: 97-109. Krichevsky, Sergey. Aerospace Activity: Interdisciplinary Analysis. Moscow: LIBROKOM, 2012. Krys’ko, Vladimir. Secrets of Psychological Warfare (Objectives, Tasks, Methods, Forms, Experience). Minsk: Harvest, 1999. Kuffler, Stephen W., and John G. Nicholls. From Neuron to Brain. Moscow: Mir, 1979. Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Moscow: Progress, 1977. Kumankov, Arseniy. Just War Theory in the US Analytical Ethics: the Dissertation ... The candidate of philosophical sciences: 09.00.03. Moscow: National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, 2013. Kvasha, Gregory. The Theory Wars. Moscow: Tsentrpoligraf, 2011. Laing, Ronald. The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness. St. Petersburg: Bely Krolik, 1995.

The Theory of War and Peace: The Geophilosophy of Europe

183

Lasch, Christopher. The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy. Moscow: Logos, 2002. Lasswell, Harold. Propaganda Technique in the World War. Moscow: State Publishing House, Military Literature Department, 1929. Lawler, James. IQ, Heritability and Racism. Moscow: Progress, 1982. Leaderism Philosophy. Readings on Vozhdevedeniyu. Edited by Vladimir Avdeev. Moscow: White Alva, 2006. Lenin, Vladimir. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. Full composition of writings. Moscow: Politizdat, 1971. Vol. 27. Lem, Stanislaw. Solaris. Magellan's Cloud. Moscow: Rainbow, 1987. Leonhard, Karl. Accentuated Personality. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 2000. Levi, Primo. If This Is a Man. Moscow: Text, 2001. Levy, Jack S. and William R. Thompson. Causes of War. WileyBlackwell, 2010. Levy, Jack S. Theories of War and Peace. Political Science 522. Rutgers University. Spring, 2015. http://home.uchicago.edu/~mjreese/CurrentStudents/LevyPS522.pdf Lilleker, Darren. Key Concepts in Political Communication. Kharkov: Humanities Center, 2010. Linebarger, Paul. Psychological Warfare. Theory and Practice of Processing the Mass Consciousness. Moscow: Tsentrpoligraf, 2013. Lippmann, Walter. Public opinion. Moscow: Fund “Public Opinion”, 2004. Lorenz, Konrad. Aggression (The So-Called “Evil”). Moscow: Progress, 1994. —. Behind the Mirror. Moscow: Republic, 1998. Lotman, Yuri. The Semiosphere. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg – Arts, 2000. Lovelock, James. The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth. Oxford University Press, 2010. Luhmann, Niklas. Theory of Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995. Lyubishchev, Alexander. Lines of Democritus and Plato in the History of Culture. St. Petersburg: Aletheia, 2000. Machiavelli, Nicolo. The Prince. Translator: W. K. Marriott. The Project Gutenberg EBook, February 11, 2006. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232h.htm#link2HCH0003 Malakhov, Viktor. Ethics: A Course of Lectures. Kyiv: Lybid, 2004.

184

Bibliography

Malska, Marta, Natalia Antoniuk, Yuri Zanko, and Natalia Ganych. Experience Country: Theory and Practice. Kyiv: Center of educational literature, 2012. Malysheva, Nataliya. Essays on Space Law. Kyiv: Alerta, 2010. Mandrahelya, Vladimir. The Causes and Nature of Wars (Armed Conflicts): Philosophical and Sociological Analysis. Kyiv: European University, 2003. Mannheim, Karl. Favorites: Diagnosis of Our Time. Moscow: Govoryashchaya Kniga, 2010. Many Globalizations. Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary World. Edited by Peter L. Berger and Samuel P. Huntington. Moscow: Aspekt Press, 2004. Marcuse, Herbert. Eros and Civilization. One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Moscow: AST, 2002. Masciandaro, Nicola. Becoming Spice: Commentary as Geophilosophy. In Collapse Vol. VI: Geo/Philosophy. January, 2010: 20–56. Maslow, Abraham. Motivation and Personality. St Petersburg: Eurasia, 1999. Matsuo, Masatsugu. Concept of Peace in Peace Studies: a Short Historical Sketch. In Bulletin of the Tomsk State Pedagogical University. 2007. Vol. 1 (64): 52-59. McLuhan, Marshall. The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962. —. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Moscow: Kuchkovo Pole, 2003. McMahan, Jeff. Killing In War. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Meadows, Donella, Dennis L. Meadows, Jtsrgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III. The Limits to Growth. The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome's Project on the Predicament of Mankind. Moscow: Moscow University Press, 1991. Meadows, Donella, Jorgen Randers, and Dennis Meadows. Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. Moscow: Akademkniga, 2007. Menon, Rajan, and Eugene B. Rumer. Conflict in Ukraine: The Unwinding of the Post-Cold War Order. Mit Press, 2015. Menshikov, Valery, Anatoly Perminov, and Yuri Urlichich. Space and Global Safety of Humanity. Moscow: NIIKS, 2010. Mikhalev, Sergei. Military Strategy: Preparation and Conduct of New and Latter-Day Wars. Moscow: Kuchkovo Polye, 2003. Morgenthau, Hans and Kenneth Thompson. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985.

The Theory of War and Peace: The Geophilosophy of Europe

185

Morton J. H., Additon H., Addison R. G., Hunt L., Sullivan H. A clinical study of premenstrual tension. In American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, June 1953, Volume 65, Issue 6, Pages 1182–1191. http://www.ajog.org/article/0002-9378(53)90358-5/abstract Motroshilova, Nelly. Civilization and Barbarism in an Epoch of Global Crises. Moscow: Kanon +, 2010. Moyer, Kenneth Evan. The psychobiology of aggression. New York: Harper & Row, 1976. Mumford, Lewis. Myth of the Machine: Technics and Human Development. New York: Harcourt Brace, & World, 1967. Murklinskaya, Guria. The Geopolitical Chess. Arts Win Without War. Makhachkala: Period, 2008. Naisbitt, John, and Nana Naisbitt. High Tech High Touch: Technology and Our Search for Meaning. Moscow: AST, 2005. Nazaretyan, Akob. Anthropology of Violence and Culture of SelfOrganization. Essays on Evolutionary Historical Psychology. Moscow: LKI, 2007. Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary. Debate. Edited by David A. Baldwin. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993. Neumann, Erich. The Origin and Evolution of Consciousness. Moscow: REFL-book, 1998. Nicholls, John, Robert Martin, Bruce Wallace, and Paul Fuchs. From Neuron to Brain. Moscow: LKI, 2008. Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Will to Power: Attempt at a Revaluation of all Values. Moscow: REFL-book, 1994. North, Robert. War, Peace, Survival: Global Politics and Conceptual Synthesis. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990. Norton, Greg. The War in Ukraine: The Invisible Step Toward The Beginning of World War 3. Digital Publishing Group, 2014. Novikov, Gennady. Theories of International Relations. Irkutsk: Irkutsk University Press, 1996. http://www.twirpx.com/file/42501/ Omniatlas. November 11, 1918. The new German government signed an armistice with the Allies. http://omniatlas.com/maps/europe/19181111/ Oxford Dictionaries. Oxford University Press, 2016. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ Palmer, Jack, and Linda Palmer. Evolutionary Psychology. The Ultimate Origins of Human Behavior. St. Petersburg: Praym-Evroznak, 2003. Panarin, Igor. Information Warfare and Geopolitics. Moscow: Generation, 2006. Pavlenko, Yuri. A History of World Civilization: A Philosophical Analysis. Kyiv: Phenix, 2002.

186

Bibliography

Penrose, Roger. The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 2003. Pereslegin, Sergei. The Hidden History of the Second World War. A New Look at the War Between Realities. Moscow: Eksmo, 2012. Pereslegin, Sergey, Elena Pereslegina, Artiom Zheltov, Natalia Lukovnikova. Amount of Strategies. St. Petersburg, 2013. http://futuredesigning.org/proekti/uchebnikpostrategii.html Perr, Irwin N. Premenstrual Tension, Medicine and Law. 7 Clev.-Marshall L. Rev. 52. 1958. http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=356 2&context=clevstlrev Pikul, Valentin. The Complete Works in 30 volumes. Moscow: Military Publishing, 1992. Plato. Collected Works in Four Volumes. Moscow: Mysl, 1994. Platonova, Natalia. Aggression in Children and Adolescents. St. Petersburg: Rech, 2004. Plotinus. Ennead. Volume III. Harvard University Press, 1967. https://www.loebclassics.com/view/LCL442/1967/pb_LCL442.1.xml Pocheptsov, George. Communication Theory. Moscow: REFL-book, 2001. —. Revolution. com. Fundamentals of Engineering Protest. Moscow: Europe, 2005. Political Finance and Corruption in Eastern Europe: The Transition Period. Edited by Daniel Smilov and Jurij Toplak. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2007. Popper, Karl. The Open Society and Its Enemies (in 2 volumes). Moscow: Phenix, 1992. http://baguzin.ru/wp/?p=9464 —. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Moscow: Republic, 2004. Potapenko, Yaroslav. Fifth Russo-Ukrainian War: From Maidan to the Eastern Front (Approaches, Evaluation, Interpretation). PereyaslavKhmelnitsky: Publisher KSV, 2016. Pribram, Karl. Languages of the Brain: Experimental Paradoxes and Principles in Neuropsychology. Moscow: Progress, 1975. Priest, Stephen. Theories of the Mind. Moscow: Idea-Press, 2000. Prostakov, Michael. The Degree of Elaboration of Scientific Research and Prospects of the Problem of Psychological Stability. Zhitomir: Zhytomyr State University, 2011. http://prostakov.org/page/91/ Psychiatry Wars and Catastrophes. Editor by Vladislav Shamrey. St. Petersburg: SpetsLit, 2015. Ramachandran, Vilayanur. The Tell-Tale Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Quest for What Makes Us Human. Moscow: Career Press, 2012.

The Theory of War and Peace: The Geophilosophy of Europe

187

Rastorguev, Sergei. Philosophy of Information Warfare. Moscow: Vuzovskaya Kniga, 2003. Reich, Wilhelm. The Mass Psychology of Fascism. http://switzerland.indymedia.org/media/2013/01/88466.pdf Rene, Girard. Violence and the Sacred. Moscow: New Literary Review, 2000. Report on the Implementation of the European Security Strategy. Brussels, 11 December 2008. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/re ports/104630.pdf Rheingold, Howard. Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. Moscow: FAIR PRESS, 2006. Ridley, Matt. Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters. New York: HarperCollins, 1999. Rozhin, Boris. The War in Ukraine Every Day. “The Horn of Totalitarian Propaganda.” Moscow: Algoritm, 2015. Rozov, Nikolai. The Nature of War: the Macrosociological Analysis of Essence and Reasons of a Mass Organized Violence. In the book War and Geopolitics. Almanac “Peace Time”. Vol. 3. Novosibirsk, 2003: 75-120. Rushkoff, Douglas. Coercion: Why We Listen to What “They” Say. New York: Riverhead Books, 2000. Rybalka, Valentin. Psychology of Development of the Creative Gifted Person. Kiev: Information Systems, 2011. —. Theories of Personality in Domestic Philosophy, Psychology and Pedagogy. Zhitomir: Publisher Zhytomyr University, 2015. Sakwa, Richard. Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands. London: I.B. Tauris, 2015. Sarkees, Meredieth Reid, and Frank Wayman. Resort To War: 1816 – 2007 (Correlates of War). Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2010. Schaff, Philip. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Vol. II St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine. Editors by Philip Schaff. Buffalo: The Christian Literature Co., 1887. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/schaff-a-select-library-of-thenicene-and-post-nicene-fathers-of-the-christian-church-vol-2 Schmitt, Carl. The State and Political Form. Moscow: Publishing House of the State University - Higher School of Economics, 2010. Schwartau, Winn. Information Warfare: Cyberterrorism: Protecting Your Personal Security in the Electronic Age. 2nd Edition. New York: Thunders Mouth Press, 1996. Sennett, Richard. The Fall of Public Man. Moscow: Logos, 2002.

188

Bibliography

Shay, Jonathan. Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing of Character. New York: Atheneum, 1994. Schütz, Alfred and Thomas Luckmann. Structures of the Life-World. Kyiv: Ukrainian Center for Spiritual Culture, 2004. Šišková, NadČžda. From Eastern Partnership to the Association: A Legal and Political Analysis. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014. Smirnov, Dmitry. Semiosophy of Noospheric Universe: Noosphere and Semiosphera in Global Discourse. Ivanovo University Press, 2008. —. Noospheric Idea and Noospheric History: An Introduction to the Universal Kliosofiya. Ivanovo University Press, 2012. Snesarev, Andrew. The Philosophy of War. Moscow: Financial control, 2003. —. Life and Works of Clausewitz. Moscow: Kuchkovo Pole, 2007. —. Introduction to Military Geography. Moscow: Tsentrizdat, 2011. Snyder, Timothy. Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books, 2010. Sokolov, Boris. How to Calculate the Losses in World War II. In Continent 2006, 128. http://magazines.russ.ru/continent/2006/128/so10.html Solnick, Steven. Stealing the State: Control and Collapse in Soviet Institutions. Harvard University Press, 1998. Sorokin, Pitirim. Social and Cultural Dynamics: Vol. III: Fluctuation of Social Relationships, War, and Revolution. New York: American Book Company, 1937. —. Man. Civilization. Society. Moscow: Politizdat, 1992. Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Primary Megadeaths of the Twentieth Century. 2011. http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm Space Weather Effects on Humans: in Space and on Earth. Proceedings of the International Conference Space Research Institute, Moscow, Russia, June 4–8, 2012, Ed. A.I. Grigoriev and L.M. Zeleny In two volumes. Moscow. 2013. Spengler, Oswald. The Decline of the West. Volume I: Form and Actuality. Minsk: Poppuri, 1998. —. The Decline of the West. Volume II: Perspectives of World-History. Minsk: Poppuri, 1999. Starr, Harvey. Anarchy, Order, and Integration: How to Manage Interdependence. University of Michigan Press, 2000. Stepanov, Alexander. War and Peace in Semantic Space of Philosophy: Methodological Aspect. In Bulletin of the Tomsk State Pedagogical University. 2007. Vol. 1 (64): 30-35.

The Theory of War and Peace: The Geophilosophy of Europe

189

Sterling, Bruce. The Future Has Already Begun: What will Happen to Each of Us in the 21st Century? Ekaterinburg: U-Faktoriya, 2005. Sutyagina, Lyudmila. Anthropology of War and Peace. According to the Views of Russian Religious Philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries. St. Petersburg: MAE RAN, 2013. Suvorov, Alexander. The Science of Victory. Moscow: Voenizdat, 1980. Svendsen, Lars. A Philosophy of Evil. Moscow: Progress-Tradition, 2008. Szporluk, Roman. The Empire and Nations. Kyiv: Dux i Litera, 2000. Taleb, Nassim Nicholas. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Moscow: CoLibri, 2009. —. Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder. Random House, 2012. Thacker, Toby. Joseph Goebbels. Life and death. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription. In Congress, July 4, 1776. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html The War in Ukraine: Lessons for Europe. Editors by Artis Pabriks and Andis Kudors. The Centre for East European Policy Studies. University of Latvia. RƯga, 2015. The World after the Crisis. The Global Trend – 2025: The Transformed World. The Report of the USA National Intelligence Council. Moscow: Europe, 2009. Theories of War and Peace (International Security Readers). Edited by Michael E. Brown. MIT Press, 1998. Thucydides. The Peloponnesian War. London: J. M. Dent; New York: E. P. Dutton, 1910. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Thuc.+1.23&fromdoc= Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0200 Toffler, Alvin and Heidi Adelaide Toffler. War and Anti-War: Making Sense of Today’s Global Chaos. Grand Central Publishing, 1995. Tolstoy, Leo. Complete Works in twenty two volume. Moscow: Fiction, 1983. Tomasello, Michael. Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008. Towards a New European Security Strategy? Assessing the Impact of Changes in the Global Security Environment. Directorate-General for External Policies. Policy Department, 2015. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2015/534989/E XPO_STU(2015)534989_EN.pdf Toynbee, Arnold. Civilization on Trial. Oxford University Press, 1948.

190

Bibliography

—. A Study of History. Civilization in Time and Space. Moscow: AST, 2009. Trukhin, Igor. Whimsical Trails Modern Morality. Kyiv: “Center of Educational Literature”, 2007. Tsyganov, Vladimir, and Sergei Bukharin. Information Wars in Business and Politics: Theory and Methodology. Moscow: Academic Project, 2007. Tsymbursky, Vadim. Russia - Land of Great Limitrophe: Civilization and its Geopolitics. Moscow: URSS, 1999. Turchin, Alexey, and Mikhail Batin. Futurology. 21st Century: Immortality or Global Catastrophe? Moscow: Binom, 2013. Tyutyunnik, Julian. Philosophy Geografii. Kyiv: Ukraina, 2011. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Ukraine: Situation Report No. 37 as of 24 April 2015. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/ocha_ukraine_situ ation_report_37-_24_april_2015.pdf Urlanis, Boris. War and the Population of Europe. Moscow: Publishing Socio-Economic Literature, 1960. Vasquez, John A. The War Puzzle Revisited. Cambridge University Press, 2009. Vekker, Leo. Reality and the Mind: A Theory of Mental Processes. Moscow: Smysl, 2000. Vernadsky, Vladimir. Chemical Structure of the Earth’s Biosphere and its Surroundings. Moscow: Nauka, 1987. —. Scientific Thought As a Planetary Phenomenon. Moscow: Nauka, 1991. Virilio, Paul. Information Bomb. Strategy of Deception. Moscow: Gnosis, 2002. Wallerstein, Immanuel. End of the Familiar World: Sociology of the 21st Century. Moscow: Logos, 2004. Waltz, Kenneth. Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001. —. Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979. War and Peace in the Terms and Definitions. Military-Political Dictionary. Edited by Dmitry Rogozin. Moscow: PoRog, 2004. Wawrzonek, Michal. Religion and Politics in Ukraine. The Orthodox and Greek Catholic Churches as Elements of Ukraine’s Political System. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014. Weaponry in Space: the Dilemma of Security. Edited by E. P. Velikhov, R. Z. Sagdeev and A. A. Kokoshin. Moscow: Mir, 1986.

The Theory of War and Peace: The Geophilosophy of Europe

191

Webb, Ɋ. Taylor, and Kalervo N. Gulson. Policy, Geophilosophy and Education. Sense Publishers, 2015. Welsh, David. Domestic Politics and Ethnic Conflict. In Ethnic Conflict and International Security. Edited by Michael E. Brown. Princeton University Press, 1993: 43-60. White, Gilbert. Geography, Resources and Environment. Moscow: Progress, 1990. Wiesel, Tatiana. Fundamentals of Neuropsychology. Moscow: AST 2009. Wood, Elizabeth B., William E. Pomeranz, E. Wayne Merry, and Maxim Trudolyubov. Roots of Russia's War in Ukraine. Columbia University Press, 2015. Woodard, Ben. On an Ungrounded Earth: Towards a New Geophilosophy. New York: Punctum Books, 2013. World Values Survey, 2015. http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp Wright, Quincy. Study of War. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965. Yakovenko, Natalia. Mirrors of Identity: Studies of the History of Concepts and Ideas in Ukraine, 16th - early 18th centuries. Kyiv: Laurus, 2012. Yekelchyk, Serhy. The Conflict in Ukraine: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press, 2015. Zakharov, Vladimir. The Evolution of Views on the War: from Clausewitz to the Present. In Problems of National Strategy. 2010. ʋ 3: 79-94. http://riss.ru/images/pdf/journal/2010/3/09_.pdf Zeanah, Charles H., Charles A. Nelson III, and Nathan A. Fox. Pain Adopted Children. In “V Mire Nauki”. June 6, 2013. P.53-58. Zelinsky, Sergei. The Manipulation of the Masses and Psychoanalysis. Manipulation of Mass Mental Processes Through Psychoanalytic Techniques. St. Petersburg: Scythia 2008. Zhmurov, Dmitry. Glossary of Terms of Aggression and Violence. LAP LAMBERT, 2011. Zubok, Vladislav. A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev (The New Cold War History). University of North Carolina Press, 2007.