（Alexander N. Chumakov）
It seems that we are getting into a new cold war. In a globally interdependent world, there is no outside force that can enable so many international actors to respect not only their own self-interest but also others’ and the common interest. All kinds of punishment symbolize the phenomenon, which in the past few years have increasingly become tools to impose pressure on other countries and organizations for altering their polices and acts. Observing the world from the fractal perspective, when we focus on its “cultural and civilized system”, we can categorize the cultures and civilizations conventionally regarded independent along a certain clear line, and fix their positions in modern global scenario. The most valuable of this analysis lies in the notion that does not treat the upheavals and conflicts as accidents represented by “ Color Revolution” and sanctions. During the interaction and collision of “cultural and civilized systems”, their true nature is getting clearer and clearer.
Key Words: New Cold War; punishment; fractal observation; categorization; reaching one goal
by different means.
In the past two decades, the situation in the world has changed dramatically in terms of the increased tension between alliances within a single country, between nations, and between nations. Obviously, we seem to be gradually falling into the new cold war. This situation is generated in the context of globalization in multiple fields.
1. In a world of global interdependence, no external power can enable many international actors to respect not only their own interests but also the interests and common interests of others, and each actor who pursues its own goals and protects its own interests will not be able to Avoid launching a war of everyone against everyone. A wide variety of sanctions is a vivid manifestation of this state. Over the past few years, they have become more and more a tool for pressure on certain countries and organizations to change their policies and behaviors. As a typical feature of the world order since the end of the 20th century, the “color revolution” is an excellent example of this growing instability. Such revolutions stem from domestic tensions in different countries, and sanctions are external, that is, they are part of the interaction between the various subjects of international law. It is a new phenomenon to use sanctions as a specific tool to solve problems that cannot be negotiated. Their effectiveness depends on global connections and global interdependence – sanctions do not make sense until they exist. Nowadays, the world has entered an era of multi-domain globalization, and sanctions have become popular. Although it sounds a bit strange, it is still reasonable to think that sanctions are a civilized means of protecting their own interests and solving the contradictions and disputes between the subjects of international law in global international affairs. In fact, they mean that “soft power” is used when people can’t find a legal or negotiable solution.
2. Sanctions are of course bad. It means weakening trade, commerce, finance and other links, which worsens the economic situation and degrades the quality of life. These experiences will force a party to the conflict to agree (or disagree) with certain concessions and agreements. North Korea, Cuba, Iran and now Russia show that sanctions can be ignored for a long time. And their alternatives are either to follow up on the agreement reached, or to exacerbate the conflict and use force to continue the dispute. However, whether the sanctions are unilateral or bilateral, they are not only the inevitable consequence of the irreconcilable international relations, but also an effective way, even if one party to the conflict peacefully expresses dissatisfaction and opposes the other. This is important when global systemic factors are closely interdependent with the influence of multi-domain globalization. Therefore, to prevent the parties from being unable or unwilling to make concessions, apart from sanctions, they can only use force to launch war. The imposition of sanctions (as a form of “soft power”), especially in conflicts involving nuclear states, should not be seen as a last resort, but as a choice between bad and worse. If the choice is bad, the participants will remain restrained and not in the worst condition, in order to retain the opportunity to continue consultations and reach mutually acceptable agreements. In this case, the best way to solve the problem is through dialogue between civilizations. The “color revolution” is different. They subvert the stability of social life, threaten existing social consensus and its impact is not limited to this country or that country. They are similar to social disasters that often occur and are diverse in form, but at the same time have their own characteristics. What is the true essence of this phenomenon? What is its basis? Why did this kind of revolution happen in various societies from the end of the 20th century? Finally, has this era of revolution passed? Can you stop them? My answer is no, this era is not over yet. This kind of revolution can’t be stopped. It can only delay their occurrence or reduce it to a lower level, but it can only be maintained for a period of time under certain conditions and the authorities have adequately responded. These means cannot eliminate the root causes of such revolutions. First, let’s take a look at the geographical location of the unstable center. Looking at the map, one can’t help but notice that countries that have had or attempted to have a “color revolution” are mostly located on the fringes between completely different cultures and civilized systems.
3. We can see some unstable areas here, one of which is in this line of countries around Western Europe. From Gibraltar, along the North Africa through the Mediterranean and the Middle East, to Armenia and Georgia, and then through Ukraine and Belarus to the Baltic Republic, there is an obvious, almost complete line. Such an obvious line can also be found between the Soviet Union republics in Asia. At the same time, in North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, and a few exceptions in South America, there is no such thing as it can be found anywhere in Asia (except for the areas mentioned above). Here only a few sporadic events that breed a “color revolution” can be found, as happened in the Philippines (1986). Only by finding the true source of social instability can we understand why. So why do unstable regions correspond to the lines mentioned above? Why do hotbeds of social tension exist in this form rather than in that form? The “color revolution” should be understood as the result of profound contradictions and differences in the social system and its external manifestations. These phenomena can be explained not only through social and political institutional arrangements or economic situations in different countries, but also through their relationship with the social systems of neighboring countries.
4. In order to understand the truth of the matter, we can compare some social and natural processes. They are far apart from each other but are similar in external performance. A look at the map of the Earth’s lithospheric plate reveals that all geological disasters occur on the fault line. From the perspective of covering all human culture and civilized systems, we can use the phenomena mentioned above to analogize what happens in society. These systems, like the lithospheric plates, cover all the social spaces on Earth, along with their faults and collision lines, all these tensions and social unrest, all of which are the “color revolution”. To better understand all of this, we should turn to the definition of cultural and civilized systems and their typology. The concept of “culture and civilisation system” was introduced into scientific terminology relatively late. It is used to refer to one or the other social structure, a specific human community, and is described as “consisting on one aspect of two aspects: on the one hand, their cultural identity, on the other hand, their degree of civilization progress. “.
5. Under the influence of globalization, human beings still retain certain autonomy and self-sufficiency of various components due to geographical separation and local territories. We need to see the unity of this social organism in diversity and interactivity. In other words, the global social system, as the main object of our research on globalization, can and should be examined from the perspective of its components. These structural elements are independent social units, such as ethnic groups, countries, social and cultural communities, economic and political alliances, and religious groups. As an independent social structure, the constituent elements (subsystems) of these single holistic systems together with the overall system itself constitute a unique sociological fractal.
6. It can be said that in the perspective of “culture and civilized system”, it is necessary to carry out the best understanding from the perspective of the global system and from its various components (each as a self-sufficient culture and civilized system). Understanding human beings and their various components as a fractal and holographically embodied in overlapping concepts such as “culture”, “civilization” and “globalization”, which makes us see in the hidden, big in the small, big in the big Seeing small, seeing accidents in the routine, seeing the routine in the accident, seeing the special in the general, seeing the universal in the special, seeing the micro, knowing the micro, and not everything. This is crucial for us to understand the world of globalization, to understand the social connections in diversity and contradiction. In other words, it is not possible to look at the world in a colorful perspective with “black and white”, or to treat the world in a “multidimensional” perspective. In order to fully reflect this new global worldview, language should also contain some necessary terms. The notion of “culture and civilisation” is a complex category that helps us understand human beings as a whole and understand their constitutive elements from a single and diverse perspective (first, the state and its coalition). The author no longer elaborates on the details of various “cultural and civilized systems”, but focuses on the main differences between them. In all kinds of “cultural and civilized systems”, on the one hand, I believe that the holistic social structure of self-sufficiency is completely different in terms of the basic characteristics of culture. Accompanied by the existence of a large number of differences, some are common to the whole society.
Important parts such as language, religion and ideology. On the other hand, the relatively uniform expressions of the common civilized connections and connections between different parts of such structures are also the characteristics of these structures. It should be mentioned that any social group has a specific territorial space here or there. Although it is not always possible to clarify its final boundary (basic contour), it can be easily identified on the geographical map of the earth, for example, in a certain ethnic region, a specific
The borders of countries or national alliances are bounded. Historians use several established terms to specify such areas: “region”, “region”, “ecumene”
7. Or the “world” of the ultimate territorial entity, the entire planet. It is sufficient to stay at the level of settlement in the context of this article, because such areas are often occupied by large modern countries or by a holistic social system represented by alliances. In the territorial boundaries of these cultures and civilized settlements, although different social entities have cultural diversity, we can see the unity of the civilized processes of these settlements. The social system of the contemporary world is composed of 18 well-defined cultural and civilized settlements: Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Russia, Near East, Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, India, China, Japan, Pacific, Australia (including New Zealand), North America. Central America, South America, North Africa, Central Africa and South Africa. Of course, this list does not mean that there are no other approaches and classification methods.
8. However, it allows us to look at the contemporary world from an unusual perspective and revisit it. I have distinguished different “cultural and civilized systems”, not to compare them in the “better” and “worse” positions, but to find out their unique characteristics and communicate culturally and civilized. opportunity. The closer the different peoples are to culture and civilization, the easier and more active they are to create an atmosphere of mutual understanding and cooperation. For example, the cultures of Europe, North America, and Australia, although different (sometimes significant) are different, but these settlements are similar in civilization, which makes their “culture and civilization system” interact on many issues. . These significantly different social systems have a similar foundation in interaction and cooperation. As L. E. Grinin and A. V. Korotayev have shown in their research, there are good reasons to classify them under a holistic “Western” concept.
9. In the past few years, people will also find that China, India, Russia and Brazil, which have their own independent culture and accelerate the development of civilization, have also joined the list of countries that strengthen cultural and civilized links and promote constructive cooperation.
10. The Western (technical, capitalist) culture and civilized development model is characterized by a desire to master natural forces and resources, accompanied by the acceleration of scientific and technological progress, the increase of artificially generated environmental pressures, social connections and relationships. Constantly changing. For the Eastern (or more extensive “non-Western”) model, cultural and civilized development is often associated with traditionalism and cultural continuity without affecting the natural processes and trends of things. Here, the elements of collectivism are the mainstream, while in the West, the elements of individualism are the main ones. This is why it is easier for the Orientals to adapt to the existing social and political environment than to transform it according to Western thinking. Finally, it can be said that in the East (and in many respects in Russia as well) people value culture, while in the West they value the process of civilization. Based on the above simple comparison of the types of social development in the West and the East, we can conclude that when we look at the world from a fractal perspective and focus on its “cultural and civilized system” (collapse), we traditionally consider it to be independent. Culture and civilization can be easily categorized along a specific, visible line and positioned in the modern global world landscape. The most valuable result of this analysis is that the social conflicts and turbulence represented by the “color revolution” and sanctions are no longer considered accidents. In the interaction and collision of various “cultural and civilized systems”, their true nature becomes clear. Returning to the “unstable zone” surrounding the culture and civilized settlement of Western Europe, I believe that it exists because of the North African, Middle Eastern and Eastern European cultures that are bordered by Western European settlements and are at different levels of civilization and civilization. The product of direct contact (actually conflict) with civilized settlements. For some historical, economic, sociocultural and other reasons, these settlements have more authoritarian political systems, less developed civic institutions, less recognition and respect for the rights of the people. Therefore, with the continuous development of globalization and technological capabilities, the continuous strengthening of social mobility, the transparency of information and the continuous improvement of education levels, people in countries closer to Western Europe directly feel a higher standard of living. They will question the civilized achievements of their social systems and not question their cultural achievements. People are increasingly trying to change their lifestyles. If the opportunities are not found in the country, people will choose immigrants in an attempt to get rid of turmoil, tyranny and poverty, thus gaining security, legal protection and related benefits. So in the past few years, Europe has been almost drowned by immigrants. Why is there no revolution between the border areas between Russia and China, the “cultural and civilized system” (the settlement), or the border between Central Africa and South Africa? If you use the analogy of the above-mentioned earth tectonic plates, the answer is obvious. Because there is no significant difference in the degree of their civilization development, it is not enough to generate enough strong tension on the boundary of their “culture and civilization system”. For settlements like North America, Central America, South America, the Pacific, Australia, and even Japan, they can steadily fight the “color revolution” because they do not border (or hardly border) other “cultural and civilized systems” and have oceanic barriers. In the meantime. Those members who are actively moving around the world and doing business (I first refer to the United States, Canada, Japan, and Australia) are advanced enough in civilization and do not have to be wary of the “color revolution.” Finally, there are some specific “color revolution” cases that are located in different settlements. As happened in the Philippines (1986), this is due to the tradition of civic movements targeting the local government system in history. The above is the main obstacle to the dialogue of civilization. Therefore, it is necessary to attach great importance to the transformation of the modern world and to conduct in-depth research on it.