The Russian Defense Ministry's briefing on Turkish oil is the first salvo in a new format conflict.

Turkey is the main buyer of ISIS oil *. It also supplies the militants with weapons, ammunition and equipment purchased with the proceeds. Moreover, the illegal oil business is supervised by the family of Turkish President Recep Erdogan. Such conclusions were announced the day before during a briefing at the RF Ministry of Defense. The above was supported by more than convincing evidence: photo and video frames obtained using military space reconnaissance means. Materials from the briefing in Russian and English are posted on the website of the military department.

The military identified three main routes for transporting oil from Syria and Iraq to Turkey. This is the western route - it leads to the Turkish ports of Dertyol and Iskenderun on the Mediterranean coast, the northern route to the Batman oil refinery located in Turkey, 100 kilometers from the Syrian border, and the eastern route to a large transshipment base in the village of Cizre. The speakers of the briefing showed the routes of illegal oil supplies on a map.

Also shown were the accumulations of fuel trucks, including those disguised as cargo trucks, in front of the checkpoints across the Syrian-Turkish border, as well as the places of their "deployment" on Turkish territory. Photographs and videos taken from space, as well as from unmanned aerial vehicles, were georeferenced to settlements and were commented in detail by representatives of the Ministry of Defense. The exact dates and times of the shooting, the number of fuel tankers and the approximate amount of oil transported by them were named. From the information provided, it is clear that we are talking about systematic intelligence work over several months.

More than intelligence

It was these pictures that President Putin showed at the Antalya summit at one time. Then he said that the information about the financing of terrorists is not secret. Obviously, this was the last warning to President Erdogan, which, judging by the Su-24 shot down later, had no effect. It took a more extensive coverage of the topic, literally to a worldwide audience, which was implemented. The work done made it possible to estimate the total volume of ISIS "exports" - $ 2 billion per year. Thanks to the strikes of Russian aviation, the amount of funds raised for the oil sold has been cut in half.

However, the most interesting for the audience was the political part of the speech by the speakers of the Ministry of Defense. The highest military ranks did not confine themselves to providing facts of oil transit, but added to them the accusation against Erdogan's family, his son and son-in-law, of controlling illegal operations in their own interests. Moreover, their replicas were sharp and imaginative at the same time. “There is a united team of bandits and Turkish elites in the region to steal oil from neighbors,” said Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov. “What a brilliant family business! Is this, in general, possible anywhere else? " the general asked rhetorically, calling those present "colleagues."

In fact, it was a clear and verified response to Erdogan, who promised to leave his post if evidence of his involvement in the ISIS oil business was presented. "Erdogan will not be able to evade responsibility, even if he smears his face with the stolen oil!" - Antonov promised, adding at the same time that the removal of the president from his post is the business of the Turkish people. At the same time, the general made a reservation that he does not believe in Erdogan's departure, but considers it his duty to provide all the factual information that his department has, counting on its use in professional journalistic investigations. In conclusion, the speakers promised not to stop there and present the continuation of the story in the near future.

Information bomb

It is clear that the briefing held by the Ministry of Defense was the result of painstaking, long and carefully planned work. In terms of its scale, and, most importantly, the effect, it is comparable to the actual hostilities that the military department plans and carries out in Syria. Catching Erdogan at his word, putting his trump cards on the table at the right time is worth a lot. We are dealing with a real political attack carried out by representatives of the department on the Arbat.

The opposite side understood the power of this attack instantly. Erdogan, who is in Qatar (!), Immediately announced that he was "out of business." “Turkey has not yet lost its conscience to receive oil from a terrorist organization,” he said without batting an eye. His performance was shown live on Turkish television. The US State Department, as usual, covered up its obstinate ally. At a briefing in Washington, Deputy Press Secretary Mark Toner said the Turkish government denies any involvement of the Turkish president and his family in the illegal oil trade with the militants. However, at the same time in Brussels, his patron, John Kerry, said that Erdogan agreed with the US demand to completely close the Turkish-Syrian border.

Thus, the goal of Russia's information attack was achieved. Funding for ISIS will decline, and with it its military potential will melt. All this, of course, is the result of a complex impact on the enemy. The military component is still extremely important. Without her, nowhere. However, the importance of competent presentation of information to the world community has grown by an order of magnitude. In fact, the Ministry of Defense has a new, additional function - media. And there they are clearly aware of it. No wonder the speakers at the briefing were the Deputy Minister of Defense and the Chief of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff - the heart of the military department. It seems that now this format will become regular.

New life of the SVR

Accustomed to the image of a scout performed by Stirlitz, for a long time we perceived reconnaissance as a kind of secret mission. This was the case, of course, in the era of closed borders and restrictions on information. No wonder “enemy voices” have become one of the most effective methods of destroying the USSR. Having put their opinions, views, assessments and conclusions into the craniums of the intelligentsia, and through it other people, the West managed to disintegrate the country from the inside without firing a single shot. The terrible Satan missiles, which the USSR had been preparing for so long, never flew anywhere. Even then, information weapons turned out to be more powerful than hardware. In any case, it is more effective in a real geopolitical battle.

The victorious West drew conclusions and continued its line in a form adapted to modern reality. "Voices of the enemy" have survived, but from now on they began to focus not so much on the dissemination of information, but on the creation of unique content that meets the national interests of one or another power. Not so long ago, this scheme became known thanks to the publication of a report by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the UK House of Commons. The report mentioned, in particular, the TV channels RBK-TV and Dozhd, which, in cooperation with the British Air Force, “deliver the information required by the British Foreign Office to the Russian audience”. Regardless of the financial aspects of such work, its effectiveness is beyond question. The Russian symmetrical response was the deployment of the Russia Today TV channel. Recently, it reached the mark of 3 billion views on Youtube.

However, these are all experiments within the framework of pure journalism. As the actions on the information front have shown, the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation can achieve much more by extracting unique content using methods that only the state can afford. By publishing such information at the right time, it is possible to win wars before they start, destroying, for example, the reputation of the initiator of a potential military conflict. Or securing the position of their country with the decisive support of world public opinion. But you never know there are secrets, having announced, which can significantly affect the balance of power in the world ?!

Simply put, if earlier the results of the SVR's work were a state secret, now, perhaps, tactics should be changed - some of these results should be made public. Approaching this from a military point of view - as a weapon. Such an approach will, of course, affect the setting of tasks and methods of work, and in general will lead to a complete revision of the entire concept of foreign intelligence. However, in a rapidly changing world, this is exactly what is needed. Generals usually prepare for the past war, but one must prepare for the future. What the Ministry of Defense is doing now is a sure step in the right direction.

* The Islamic State movement was recognized as a terrorist organization by the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 29, 2014, its activities on the territory of Russia are prohibited.

S. Naryshkin,
Chairman of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation

The essence of information warfare in the 21st century is reduced to the maximum value disorientation of the ruling elite in order to use it for subsequent pressure and the implementation of power policy. The absence of a value system in society is the very first and most important condition for defeat. No material resources can ensure victory if there is no strength and desire to sacrifice a lot for this, including health and life.

As you know, information media in the 21st century have turned into real means of armed struggle, even if they are not yet formally recognized by some specialists for various reasons. First of all, from the point of view of influencing the main object of the armed struggle - the ruling elite and society, their consciousness and will. This impact (of course, to varying degrees) has always occurred and is happening always in relations between the HCV of nations and countries, but the fundamental difference lies in the fact that the degree and scale of this impact for each HCV is qualitatively (tens, hundreds of times) different from each other. So, if the degree of influence of the Russian LCV on the western LCV approaches 1%, then the reverse effect is tens, and if necessary, it can be hundreds of times greater.

On the logical model, which I cite below, it can be seen that the absolute dominance of the western LCP in informational influence (IW) leads to:

- creation of a new, necessary Western LChC of virtual reality, along the entire hierarchy - ChC – MO – VPO – SO, including direct impact on individuals and specific news stories;

- the impact on IoT of other LCs, subjects and actors of world politics through the management of information resources and personal influence on representatives of the elite.

For the beginning of the XXI century, it is characteristic that the Western LCHS not only intensifies the information and propaganda background of the Ministry of Defense, but also artificially creates the necessary “virtual reality” of the Ministry of Defense, which undoubtedly complicates the strategic and military-political situation. Classic examples of R. Reagan's comparison of the USSR with the "empire of the devil" or the reckoning of Russia by B. Obama among the three main global threats (epidemics of EBOLA and Islamic extremism) are almost daily updated with "new threats" emanating from Russia. A characteristic feature of such a policy is the involvement of political institutions and organizations in it - PACE, OSCE, UN General Assembly, etc.

The development of ML scenarios in the long term inevitably presupposes a “paradigm shift” of world development, i.e. quality changes ("phase changes") in all areas of human activity: politics, economics, military affairs. And not only those already mentioned - economic, social and political, but also humanitarian, ideological. Therefore, the inevitably necessary qualitative analysis of trends in the development of defense organizations, based on the study of global development trends, should be an obligatory addition to the quantitative analysis of the state and military power of subjects participating in defense and military defense, which is currently being done with the involvement of an increasing number of analyzed factors.

On the whole, the obligation of a systematic approach to the assessment and analysis of CRM, its role for the Ministry of Defense, is dictated by the objective essence of the nature of war, which, according to the just observation of Russian researchers, can be considered, at least, in the following manifestations in the 21st century:

- as traditional means used by politicians to achieve their goals. In this aspect, the war is addressed to political leaders, governments, states, as well as the LChC;

- how process interactions, armed confrontation, armed struggle between two or more resisting social subjects. With this hypostasis, war is addressed to the armed forces, to the army, being in the 21st century the main means of confrontation between the LChC;

- as defined condition society, the HCV (and the state) in all its dimensions, which is characterized by the dominance of armed violence and the way of solving social problems. This side of the war is directed to society, the LChC and the states as a whole. Accordingly, the strategic situation that characterizes a military conflict or war is not just a part of the military and military defense, i.e. specific conditions for the conduct of hostilities, and (continued) process in the military policy of the state, a certain (critical) condition society (LChTs) and a condition for the implementation of power funds the state.

This can be graphically reflected using a simple diagram.

Information warfare in this case means much more than one, even the most important means of warfare. It becomes a social process in the Armed Forces, characterizes the state of society and is the most important power (and not only armed) means of the state.

This means that the formation of a strategic situation in modern conditions is initially conducted against the most important goals of the war, which we have already spoken about:

- destruction of the ruling elite;

- disorganization of society and government institutions;

- military and socio-economic potential and its infrastructure;

–The armed forces of the LChC and the country.

The ruling elite is an extremely important target on this list. This is precisely what explains the harsh anti-Putin rhetoric, sanctions and attempts at destabilization that the Western LC is trying to carry out especially actively in 2013-2015. It leads to the artificial militarization of the Defense Ministry by whipping up information hysteria and attempts to create such a “virtual” CO that would put pressure on V. Putin and his entourage. In other words, the information war strategy leads to the formation of a hostile SO (transfer of troops, storage of equipment, organization of headquarters, etc.), which is already affecting the formation of a hostile scenario of Defense Ministry and military defense.

Accordingly, the CO, which forms the main features of a particular war, simultaneously acts as a reflection of the state of states and societies, and the processes taking place in the armed forces, and as a means of the policy of states and military-political coalitions. Including directly affects the formation of MO. This was especially evident in 2013–2015 in Europe.

For a better understanding of the influence of the CO on the formation of the Defense Ministry, it is necessary to take into account the following signs of war, which are reflected each time on the specific state of the CO and the prospects for its development. These signs, which characterize SO and wars in the 21st century, will naturally change and have very different effects on MO:

- so, war is not just a social phenomenon and an independent area of ​​social life, but also a special one, namely: an extremely aggravated social reality. The creation of internal political instability, and even more so a situation of civil war, radically affects the entire MO. Thus, the revolutions in Russia and Germany led to the end of the First World War, the "orange revolutions" - to a change in foreign policy already in the 21st century;

- war is a macro-social conflict in a fragmented society, which leads to an even more radical aggravation of social relations;

- the war records, at least, the presence of at least 2 subjects participating in it, but in reality sets the entire MO in motion;

- the goals and objectives of these subjects participating in the war, as a rule, are opposite;

- lack of certain resources to achieve these goals;

- war and preparations for it mean a rapid increase in the need for the means of armed violence on both sides. For example, in 2014–2015, the production of WiVST in Ukraine increased 50 times;

- the possibility and readiness of their use to resolve conflicting goals and objectives of subjects (states, social communities);

- war means that the parties are ready for mass and wide-scale use of means of armed violence on both sides. And, as a rule, unlimited by any formal agreements. The wars in Iraq, Syria and Ukraine in 2013–2015 have shown that the parties violate any obligations towards the civilian population and prohibit the use of certain types of weapons and military equipment;

- war means that the parties not only actively oppose each other, but use the entire arsenal of their means for this, incl. and prohibited, but, above all, those that can lead to the revitalization of potential allies. This means that it is becoming increasingly difficult for other countries to resist being drawn into the war. Or at least a confrontation. So, on the issue of the war in Ukraine, there was a de facto watershed in the relations of most of the states participating in the Defense Ministry. Even those who are very far away and have no interest in the development / continuation of the conflict. The United States and its allies in the Western LCV during 2014-2015 actually mobilized their supporters and even ordered third countries to curtail relations with Russia;

- war in the 21st century does not at all mean the adoption of a legal act of declaring a state of war by the heads of state and (or) legislative authorities and others. The United States waged decades of war without formally declaring a state of war. In the 21st century, this act has become an empty formality: wars begin and are waged even in conditions of maintaining not only diplomatic, but also trade and economic relations between countries.

In this lies a very great danger of the influence of a hostile SO and war on the Ministry of Defense. The preservation of the peaceful status of the Defense Ministry and the operation of international institutions presupposes that they (the institutions) themselves turn, in one way or another, into means of war. Each warring side will seek to use them in its own way, but in the end this leads to devaluation of their value and withering away, as is the case with the OSCE and PACE over the conflict in Ukraine.

It must be said that each of these features of the influence of SO on the IO requires its own clarification and concretization in each specific situation. Moreover, the strategic forecast of a possible scenario for the development of the Ministry of Defense presupposes, in particular, a strategic forecast for the development of each of these features. For example, the information war waged in 2014-2015 by the Western LCHC against the Russian ruling elite is expressed simultaneously (literally within one day) by statements by the commanders of the Air Force and the United States Marine Corps with an immediate military threat from Russia and a statement by a State Department spokesman that that these are private remarks by the Air Force and Marine Corps commanders. " This achieves the effect of forceful pressure on the Russian elite by de facto recognition of the state of war and the aggravation of JI to the extreme limits, on the one hand, and a formal “reassuring” statement denying this state, on the other. I must say that the United States and its allies regularly practiced this technique in 2013-2015, using for this purpose not only the military, but also congressmen, the vice president and their allies.

The list of signs of war indicated above is by no means exhaustive and can be supplemented, characterizing the influence of the SO on the MO and the ruling elite. Moreover, it will certainly be supplemented and expanded in the interests of each of the parties. Moreover, it is very important to understand that in conditions of an information war, this or that side is interested in interpreting the nature of the war in its own way. Moreover, “in its own way” means not just a definition of war, but the creation of its virtual image, such an image of the nature of the strategic situation, which is often completely different from the real SS.

There are many examples in modern history, but the most "successful" examples of the deliberate distortion of SS by the United States in Iraq and Syria, when they tried to accuse these governments of using WMD. The war in 2014–2015 in Ukraine gave full reason to believe that the JI and the scenario for its development with the aim of destabilizing the Ministry of Defense were created long before the actual start of hostilities. It can be assumed that a carefully developed scenario for the development of JI was supposed to be implemented in 2015, but faced with the realities - Russia's readiness to actively oppose and help Ukraine in the fall of 2013 and a spontaneous aggravation of the internal political situation - was "adjusted" towards earlier implementation, i.e. ... postponed for 1–1.5 years. This, in particular, can explain the unpreparedness of the United States and its representatives in Ukraine for the development of events in Crimea and in the southeastern regions, and, most importantly, the lack of accumulated resources for the successful implementation of the planned scenario for the development of CO as another “color revolution”. It seems that in accordance with this scenario of the development of the SS and the nature of the war in Ukraine, not only a seizure of power should have taken place, but also a relatively peaceful and rapid transformation of Ukraine into a state hostile to Russia capable of military confrontation and a threat to the ruling Russian elite. This happened only in part, but the main thing did not really scare the Russian elite.

As the recent conflicts between the LCS show, a feature of the conscious-subjective distortion of CO is that in this process, all information resources - the media (electronic, print, network) - as well as opposition - in a massive manner, and without restrictions and any assumptions - any criticism from opponents or opposition. The ultimate goal is important - forceful pressure on the ruling elite, which very quickly turns into informational, administrative and even criminal terror. The costs (the credibility of the media, the death of journalists, etc.) are allowed within fairly wide limits. For example, in Ukraine, thousands of people physically suffered from terror, including hundreds of journalists.

Another feature of this subjective and conscious information distortion of CO is deliberate, without any restrictions and constraints, as well as references to "rationality", etc. distortion of reality, when without hesitation they throw in any information, not only without requiring confirmation, verification and other actions traditional for the media, but also knowingly knowing its falsity. Moreover, deliberately fabricated distorted information is thrown in droves, initially realizing that its life span is very short and not paying attention to the reputational consequences.

Therefore, disputes and discussions that refute these information provocations are extremely naive and deliberately senseless. Moreover, their refutation inevitably leads to a repetition of misinformation, which is ultimately the goal of these misinformation stuffing. That is why all kinds of talk shows, which were held daily on Russian TV in 2014–2015 with the same circle of faces, seem extremely unconvincing.

Such a deliberate distortion of SO in the interests of pressure on the ruling elite occurs due to the virtual monopoly use of huge flows of information created under control long in advance, in accordance with the development plan of SO, which are tightly "inscribed" into the unified information policy of state structures (in the United States, the State Department and The CIA, which control not only national information policy, but also information policy in most of the allied countries).

A kind of provocation is organized, an artificial "information explosion", which excludes the possible reasonable opposition of the enemy's information resources, or makes it minimally perceptible. The same massive explosion, if pressure is needed on the elite, forms a virtual image of the SO - "popular uprising", "revolution", etc. For such an information explosion, huge amounts of information are needed, which are created and reserved in advance, or the use of existing media to the full (which is being done), or the creation of special new media, which is also happening. - So, the "revolution" in Ukraine was prepared, including the emergence of "suddenly" thousands of new sites, agencies, bloggers, etc. At the same time, of course, special emphasis is placed on Internet resources, which surpassed traditional media in terms of their volume, efficiency and mass character.

The task in the formation of the image of SO is that the majority of this information flow is directed in the right direction, namely, at the formation of public opinion and the position of the ruling elite.

Another goal of such an information policy is to misinform the enemy's ruling elite and his public opinion, to create a false “virtual” image of reality, in particular, the international and military-political situation. Thus, over the past decades, a virtual image of “civilized countries” (as a rule, OECD countries) has been created, whose opinion is opposed by the position of the Russian leadership and specifically V. Putin. This "civilized" world, according to the authors, represents the entire civilization and even all of humanity, although these states do not include China, India, Brazil, Mexico, or most other states.

The creation of the SCO and BRICS, and their activation in the Defense Ministry at the beginning of the 21st century had many separate political and economic consequences, but - if we talk about the immediate consequences - it had a colossal informational impact, including the strongest influence on the formation of the SO and the Defense Ministry. Even the SCO-BRICS summit in July, which did not formalize political, let alone military alliances, had a huge impact on the strategic and informational components of the Defense Ministry.

One of the consequences of this process was the "audibility" of the position of countries that are not part of the Western LCS, because against the background of such a volume of hostile information, in addition, a message that is not a priority for the owners of information flows, but can be critically important. For this, in theory, an army of inexpensive network resources is used that generate information and a reaction to it necessary for the ruling elite. The problem, however, is that the volume, quality and speed of such information flows controlled in Russia is simply not comparable with the indicators of the Western LCH. So, in comparison with the "world flow" of information exceeding 1 billion messages (1000 million), Russia provides in total:

If we try to calculate what share of the world's information can be controlled by the Russian LHS, then it is unlikely that it will exceed 0.01%. Control over large amounts of information, as well as control over the "network", is the most important condition for the effectiveness of network-centric warfare, when it is initially necessary to create a false image of Defense Ministry, malware and, of course, SO, as well as a false image of the enemy. This is possible only if this false image is "molded" by the majority of the media, as well as online communities. The examples with the war in Georgia and Ukraine are very illustrative.

Finally, special cyber operations and attacks are of great importance in the formation of SOs, in particular, with the help of specially prepared objects. The very existence of such an opportunity disorganizes the elite, often deprives it of the adequacy of its perception. Thus, the statements of the Russian leadership, incl. Defense Minister S. Shoigu on the possibility of external control of cyber systems, of course, have a negative reaction. For example, Igor Sheremet, a member of the RF military-industrial complex for automated control systems, illustrates this idea as follows.

It should be understood that the information war against the ruling elite of Russia is being waged in a variety of ways. Including (and above all) in the network community, it is part of the network-centric war. Moreover, the impact on society and the elite, the formation of a virtual, subjectively false image of CO occurs at different levels. Thus, for the ruling elite of Russia, a false CO is formed under the influence of such theses as “a single European community”, “liberal values”, “democracy”, etc. For mass consumption - "the standard of living in Europe", "rights and freedoms", etc.

Of particular importance for the purpose of waging a network-centric war against the elite are separate, target social groups that differ in national, social, religious and other characteristics, each of which creates its own unique, subjective “image of the enemy,” CO and the situation in the country.

Social networks are of growing importance for influencing the elite of the formation of a subjectively distorted image of SO. First of all, due to the fact that they are able to cover an unlimited number of social groups of citizens, for each of which its own, unique subjectively distorted image of the enemy and SO will be formed. If for the media, especially federal, and even more so the world, a universal information policy is characteristic, then for social networks only their own, special, corresponding to the ideas of a rather narrow group of citizens is possible. Thus, it is impossible, for example, to manipulate the consciousness of citizens from Buryatia living in Moscow through the federal media (this is a too narrow group), but, if necessary, this can be easily done through the community on social networks, which, as is well known, has a they have a lot of influence.

Only social networks are the means of super-operatively influencing the elite and reacting to the changing international situation, incl. CO, where changes are possible during the day and even hours. Especially in conditions when a military or civil conflict is developing and the CO changes literally within a few hours. The course of "color" revolutions, as recent history shows, often depended on the coverage by the network media of the state and prospects for the development of SO (who wins, and who is inferior, etc.). As statistics show, the reaction of networks can be measured in thousands of visits within an hour, if significant events occur and in hundreds of thousands, even millions, within a month.

This is actively used by those forces of the Western LCH who create an artificially subjectively distorted CO, which was clearly seen in the example of Ukraine, when deliberately false information was posted on the network, which could affect the change not only in CO, but also in MO. So, an unexpected loud "victory" of the Ukrainian troops forced to change the deployment of opposition troops, undermined their morale, etc. And, conversely, “positive” false information could change not only the real SO in the theater of operations, but also the entire international situation. So, the impetus to the negotiations in Minsk both times was given by the defeat of the Ukrainian troops and a negative change for Ukraine from the SO in the region.

All this speaks of the new nature of the SD and war and the new significance of non-military means of warfare for the formation and future development of the Defense Ministry. So, in particular, some military theorists even believe that war is primarily an economic, diplomatic, psychological, information war, and the role of the armed force, armed struggle is relegated to the background. According to V. Gulin, for example: “War is distinguished not by the form of violence, but by its main essential features: an uncompromising struggle using the means of violence for a certain time, the victory of one of the parties and the defeat of the other, a significant change in the balance of forces, and as a result - a different their arrangement ". Thus, as in the definition of the war itself, the identification of its essential features is multifaceted and ambiguous.

In this regard, it can be assumed that the formation and development of the future most probable scenario for the development of the Ministry of Defense - the scenario of the "Global systemic and network-centric war of the western LChC" will occur with a further increase in the influence of informational influence on the ruling elite of the leading states of the LChC. You should expect, for example:

- strengthening of financing and development of those global media, which are already under the control of the western LChC;

- tightening state control over "independent" media, politicians and journalists, as well as civil society institutions;

- the creation of overt and covert "power" media and social networks;

- development of new methods and techniques of information warfare;

- the development of special information tools and methods of pressure on political elites, including the collection of compromising evidence, the creation of databases and special resources, the collection of information, etc. (which has already become the reason for the scandal in France and Germany).

According to many authors, in Russia, as before, the defining sign of war is military violence, that is, "the use of technical means (weapons) to physically suppress the enemy, to subordinate him to his will." This is, in their opinion, the essence of war in the exact sense of the word: “Based on the analysis of the above definitions of war, as well as its most obvious signs, it seems possible to give the following definition of war,” write Russian authors. In their opinion, "In its most general form, ... war is a two-way armed clash of antagonistic opposing forces, manifested in mass and large-scale, causing human casualties and losses."

In other words, "armed attack", "mass" and "loss of life" are still considered to be the main characteristics of war.

It is completely impossible to agree with this characterization of modern war and SS because, firstly, the consciously subjectively distorted ideas about SS among the ruling elite, which have already become the norm for network-centric war, reflect existing realities in a completely different way:

Secondly, wars can be prepared, fought and won without the direct massive use of military equipment. Their main political characteristic - the highest form of social conflict - is not limited to the use of weapons. The defeat and collapse of the Internal Affairs Department and the USSR took place with a minimal use of armed violence, as a rule, by illegal armed groups.

In the 21st century, the subjective-informational impact on the ruling elite of the enemy through the formation of a hostile SS and the threat of war should be perceived as a very wide range of threats and scenarios for the development of SS and wars, where losses can be calculated both in units and in hundreds of thousands and millions. The difference in absolute numbers is not fundamental, since the information context can be absolutely false. In Ukraine, “only” a few thousand servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Armed Forces, as well as civilians, are officially listed as dead, although in reality we can talk about 70-90 thousand. In Iran, for all the years of the war, according to some reports, more than 1 million people have already died, and in Syria - more than 500 thousand. With all the possibilities and technologies, there is no exact data because they are deliberately hidden, creating a "virtual" reality of a relatively calm CO. This difference between traditional and network-centric wars (in terms of losses) can be presented in the following comparison.

The situation is even more complicated if we try to separate military and civilian losses, which, as a rule, are 1: 8.

Finally, no one even tried to count the number of dead and “missing” in civil conflicts where armed violence was not formally used, although we are talking about tens and hundreds of thousands of people killed not by the Armed Forces, but by the same citizens, but prepared in advance in the military -sport camps.

These wars don't even count as wars. In particular, wars in the Near and Middle East, in Southeast Asia. This logic is very clearly demonstrated by the example of the military conflict in Ukraine, where the military victory in the “revolution” was won by formally “unarmed formations”. The same as in Tbilisi and Cairo.

Thus, it can be stated that in the XXI century the scenarios of the Ministry of Defense, incl. the most probable scenario of the "Global military-power confrontation of the LChC" will experience the increasing influence of negative trends in the development of SO. These tendencies, in turn, will be a consequence of the massive use of informational means of violence and war, aimed primarily at the formation of a new "virtual" reality among the ruling elite of the adversary, which is necessary for the Western LC.

Informational conflicts always occur between people. To make certain decisions, a person needs information. It allows you to take certain actions in a conflict. Information is one of the resources of human activity. It can be defined as a specific "resource" of defense and attack. Recently, theories of information warfare have begun to appear more and more often.

Age of information war

One of the rules in the modern world is the expression "Who owns information, he has power"... In the modern information world, countries began to need to strengthen their positions not only with the help of active hostilities with the use of modern weapons, entailing enormous destruction and death of a huge number of people. The rapid development of information technology has given impetus to the development of new methods of warfare, with the use of humane weapons, which include information.

In modern life, information permeates all spheres of human activity. With the expansion of the global Internet, obtaining information has become more accessible. Therefore, the idea of ​​using information as a weapon is quite logical. After all, a modern person without information technology is helpless. Information is of great importance, and, therefore, the expression "information war" takes on a threatening connotation.

What is information war

Today you can often hear the expression "Information war", but not everyone understands what it is. If you try to figure out where this type of war came from, it will become clear that information battles have been known since ancient times. The first information weapon was mythology.

In today's world of rapidly developing technologies, the power of information weapons has been increased many times over and can affect a large number of the world's population.
The main purpose of using information weapons was and remains the impact on human consciousness, manipulation of public opinion. Both entire countries and individuals can be exposed to such weapons, on which the adoption of certain decisions on specific issues of interest to the enemy depends. The main task of information warfare is to misinform the enemy, depriving him of access to reliable facts.

Information warfare can also be used within the country to subjugate the people. Information warfare can be an independent action or an accompanying factor in or military operations. The advantage of such methods of warfare is that a person who has been subjected to an information attack does not realize this, therefore, he does not have an incentive to fight and confront.

Information war in the media

In the modern world, any means of transmitting information are potentially means of fighting in an information war - the world wide web - the Internet, the media, rumors. Consequently, information weapons can be confidently considered weapons of mass destruction. Obtaining information in the age of technological progress is available to all categories of the population and all age groups. As technology develops, so will information weapons. In the future, information warfare will become more hidden and more dangerous. Recently, in many countries of the world, large-scale work has been going on to create the latest defense systems against information aggression. But despite this, every day also new types of information weapons appear, the purpose of which was and remains a person and his consciousness.

World War. All against all Larina Elena Sergeevna

ELECTRONIC WAR OF THE XXI CENTURY. Open review of the closed talk "Electronic Warfare in the Information Age" prepared by the Old Ravens Association

ELECTRONIC WAR OF THE XXI CENTURY.

Open review of the closed talk "Electronic Warfare in the Information Age" prepared by the Old Ravens Association

In the 21st century, diplomatic, informational, military, economic and law enforcement components of national power will operate in a global environment characterized by socio-economic complexity, uncertainty and dynamism. In the new global digital environment, the prosperity and security of peoples will largely depend on the strategic advantage and strength of national security in the use of the "electromagnetic spectrum of technologies" (ECT). ECTs operate on top of and regardless of geopolitical boundaries. This creates new opportunities and creates additional risks for their use in the field of commerce, government, security and military affairs within individual states, their communities and the global scale as a whole. Therefore, when using ECT, it is necessary to ensure not only their flexibility and reliability, but also the mandatory availability of their regulation by the US government. Our country must ensure undeniable superiority in ECT in order to ensure its own freedom of action and completely exclude such freedom for our potential and real opponents. When using ECT for both civilian and military purposes, it is necessary to ensure the full integration of traditional technologies and ECT in all domains (battlefields) and operational environments of confrontations and conflicts.

In the field of national security, the main military-strategic goal is to ensure strategic superiority through the use of ECT for the unconditional achievement of national American goals in all areas, while completely suppressing the enemy's capabilities to realize their own goals. In this regard, it is very important to prepare the American military and civilian personnel engaged in various types of confrontations and involved in conflicts for the full and effective use of ECT in complex and congested operational and operational environments. As part of the ECT mission, the key is to ensure the full integration of electronic attacks, electronic protection, control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum and infrastructures to support electronic warfare and confrontation. As part of the ECT mission, it is necessary to synchronize the conduct of hostilities, both in cyberspace and on other battlefields, with the organization of command and control of troops and their infrastructure, personnel work and resource support for combat operations and the effective development of infrastructure. The absence of geopolitical and natural boundaries for the use of ECT allows active operations using ECT to be carried out almost anywhere, regardless of existing state borders. Taking into account the fact that the speed of transmission of an electromagnetic pulse is very close to the speed of light, these operations can be carried out in real time and carried out on a scale of any dimension - from fractions of a millisecond to days and weeks. Beyond the use of cyber weapons proper, the use of ECT allows unit commanders of all branches of the armed forces to make decisions quickly. With sufficient information, carry out operations efficiently and at lightning speed and ensure their efficiency through the advantage of pace and awareness. The widespread use of ECT, along with the creation of new opportunities, also presupposes the emergence of new challenges. For example, the use of improvised remotely electronically controlled explosive devices on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan has required government efforts to establish international control over certain types and types of ECT and their potential for military use.

The main goal is to ensure, through the use of ECT, superiority for the United States on all battlefields, in all spheres of confrontation. The solution to this problem requires the development of fundamentally new doctrines and the use of all the latest achievements of science, technology and management.

The armed forces of the United States must have an indisputable advantage in the conduct of hostilities on land, in the air, at sea, in space, in cyberspace. This should be ensured both through complete superiority in offensive operations and the ability of the American armed forces on all battlefields and in all spheres of confrontation to suppress the enemy's opposition to carry out not only offensive, but also defensive actions. ECT plays a key role both in the conduct of hostilities itself and in the conduct of reconnaissance operations, the implementation of command and control of troops, and the provision of sustainable logistics and resource supply.

The above principles should become a strategic position that is constantly in the focus of politicians and the military, not only in the development of strategic concepts, but also operational doctrines, operational plans and specific decisions. The mission of strategic superiority should be ensured by:

Retention of strategic and operational initiatives in all phases and stages of the military cycle, including the Boyd cycle;

Integration of ECT capabilities across the entire spectrum of military operations;

Building Dominant Supremacy Capabilities for Cyberspace Operations;

Creation of a stable effective risk management system in operations using ECT as a key tool.

In order to ensure victory in 21st century conflicts on all battlefields and in all confrontations using ECT, it is necessary to properly define the interaction between cyber weapons, ECT and information operations.

1. Electromagnetic Operational Domain. Electronic warfare takes place in a global electromagnetic environment that is used to achieve physical, informational and cognitive effects. Although electronic warfare takes place in an electromagnetic environment, it provides effects not only within that environment, but also in other environments, including traditional battlefields and confrontation realms.

2. Electromagnetic Environment as a global environment. In an electromagnetic environment, as well as in other environments, opponents try to secure an advantage for themselves in order to achieve success on its basis on all battlefields. The electromagnetic environment is used both for the use of cyber weapons and for performing various types of combat, managerial and other communication functions on traditional battlefields to achieve superiority. The electromagnetic environment provides groundbreaking opportunities for excellence using the latest technology and developments.

The spread of operations to the electromagnetic environment increases the importance of technology in the general set of factors that ensure the success of military operations. The electromagnetic environment provides a sharp increase in the pace of military operations and a reduction in the duration of the military cycle, not only in cyberspace, but also in the conduct of hostilities on land, in the air, at sea and in space. Since the electromagnetic environment has no physical boundaries, it is impossible to establish any geopolitical boundaries in it. In accordance with this, actions in the electromagnetic environment are determined by factors other than those on other battlefields and cannot be regulated by international treaties and agreements recognized for these fields. Since the electromagnetic environment is uniform, its use in active offensive operations cannot be limited by any national borders.

3. Electronic warfare, cyberspace and the electromagnetic operational domain. The Joint Operations 3.0 concept includes the battlefields or domains of land, air, sea, space and information media in the operating environment. The National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations has formalized the concept of "cyberspace", defined as "an area characterized by the use of information technology and the electromagnetic environment for storing, exchanging and modifying data through electronic network communications based on software and physical infrastructure." As the international focus on cybersecurity increased, the US Department of Defense deepened and refined its understanding of cyberspace. Currently, cyberspace is characterized as a “global information environment, consisting of interconnected and interconnected in complex networks of information technology infrastructure, including the Internet, other telecommunication networks, computer systems, software solutions of various levels and types, embedded processors, controllers, etc. . ". The information environment itself is now defined as "a set of systems, organizations and individuals engaged in the collection, processing, analysis, synthesis, impact and dissemination of information." In its original definition of cyberspace, the Pentagon focused on the issue of data transfer between information systems. However, the characterization of space through the transmission medium is not a specific definition of this particular domain. In principle, sea, air, etc. can act as a medium for transmitting information. Therefore, it is more correct to supplement the definition of cyberspace by introducing the term “electromagnetic environment”. The electromagnetic environment is the medium for moving data between networked electronic systems and devices using software. Cyberspace and the electromagnetic environment have a common feature associated with the inclusion of various kinds of electronic systems. However, the electromagnetic environment and cyberspace are very different from each other. Cyberspace requires networks that connect different kinds of electronic systems. At the same time, the electromagnetic environment includes any electronic system based on the use of the physical laws of the electromagnetic field. In other words, the electromagnetic environment and cyberspace constantly interact with each other. At the same time, cyberspace focuses on the use of information technologies and related infrastructures to create an effect in the information space, and the electromagnetic environment includes not only informational, but also direct physical effects based on the laws of physics relative to the electromagnetic field. In this regard, the electromagnetic domain includes the use of electromagnetic energy to create physical, informational and cognitive effects on all battlefields and in all spheres of confrontation.

4, The relationship of the electromagnetic environment and networks. Networked systems in an electromagnetic environment provide transmission, storage and processing of data. These networked systems are used synonymously with cyberspace as defined by the National Defense Strategy for Cyberspace Operations. This environment provides the physical basis necessary for the implementation of any operations of a combat nature associated with both the impact on information and on physical objects, including not only their changes under the influence of information, but also through direct physical impact. This environment is the physical foundation of the information environment and provides interaction between electronic warfare and cyberspace operations. Operations in cyberspace cannot be conducted otherwise than in an electromagnetic network environment.

5. Electronic warfare and information operations. Information operations are currently defined by the United States Doctrine of Joint Operations as “an integrated activity that harnesses the power of the electromagnetic environment, computer networks, psychological operations, military tricks, and security measures, and aims to impact, disrupt and destroy physical and human objects, as well as decision-making and execution systems ”. It seems that this definition is not suitable for practical use, since it confuses ends and means, causes and effects, factors and sides of action. As a result of this definition, information operations coincide with the understanding of the electromagnetic environment and operations in computer systems.

In practice, it is useful to distinguish between electronic warfare and information operations. It makes sense to understand by information operations any operations aimed at the effects of influencing the adoption by a person or an automated system of certain decisions by influencing, violating, damaging or intercepting the control of decision-making systems that are both human and automated. The ways of influencing such systems can include influencing the physical, digital and cognitive components of decision-making systems. In this case, information operations may not affect the electromagnetic space. In this regard, the electromagnetic operational environment, information operations and electronic warfare are not three sides of the same, and not three spheres of some common whole, but three definitions formulated on completely different grounds. The electromagnetic operating environment is a characteristic derived from the conceptual series of physics. The electromagnetic environment is associated with physical characteristics and represents the scope of the laws of electromagnetism. Information operations relate to the impact on any decision-making system, that is, the system of choice from alternatives, regardless of whether they are carried out by people or automata based on the developed algorithms. The definition of electronic warfare is closely related to the term electromagnetic operational environment and represents confrontation, violent actions in this environment.

Electronic warfare can be implemented through defensive and offensive information operations, or they can go far beyond their limits in cases where the laws of electromagnetism are used to create technical means of destroying or disrupting the functioning of any physical objects, including humans.

A clear understanding of the differences and similarities between the electromagnetic operating environment, electronic warfare and information operations makes it possible in practice to ensure that the electromagnetic environment is used to achieve military objectives. This understanding should be the basis for the development of operational plans, military risk management systems and systems for assessing potential and real threats.

In the information age, it is possible to predict a constant increase in the scale and intensity of operations in the electromagnetic environment. At the same time, this environment will increasingly affect other environments of military operations. It should be borne in mind that in the future the dependence of all components of military power on the electromagnetic environment will grow. Accordingly, we must be prepared for the enemy to also highly appreciate the possibilities and prospects of this environment and through it will threaten our national interests. Additionally, it should be borne in mind that the electromagnetic environment is single, not delimited, as in the usual spaces, into the military and civilian spheres. Accordingly, the armed forces must be prepared for threats from this environment, not only as a result of targeted actions of the enemy, but also as a result of various kinds of information man-made disasters, failures and emergencies in this environment.

The military-strategic goal is to unconditionally ensure strategic superiority in all domains. Electronic warfare is essential to achieving this kind of superiority. Electronic warfare and weapons can be divided into passive, non-lethal and lethal or potentially lethal actions and weapons using the electromagnetic environment and its effects. Electronic weapons are an essential component of the power at the disposal of the Joint Operations Command.

In the 21st century, doctrinal developments in the field of electronic weapons and warfare should be based on six fundamental principles:

The electromagnetic spectrum is part of the physical space, which, in one way or another, interacts with all battlefields and spheres of confrontation;

Electronic weapons create physical, informational and cognitive effects through the use of electromagnetic effects;

Electronic warfare includes four elements: electronic attacks, electronic defense, electronic support for combat operations, and control of the electromagnetic environment;

Electronic control systems use electromagnetic effects to ensure freedom and effective conduct of actions on all battlefields in all areas of confrontation;

Electronic warfare and cyber operations are conducted using electronic systems and in the electromagnetic spectrum, but they are fundamentally different from each other: electronic wars are fought in the electromagnetic environment, while cyber operations are carried out in the information space;

Electronic weapons are used in information operations to influence, disrupt, alter and destroy human and automated decision-making systems and protect their own systems.

The fundamental principles of 21st century electronic warfare are based on the following basic definitions:

1. Electromagnetic control. Electromagnetic control is the management and coordination of proprietary systems operating in an electromagnetic environment and performing or supporting operations in all domains.

2. Electronic attacks. These are attacks that are carried out using electromagnetic energy. They can be aimed at various physical objects, telecommunication networks and computer devices, decision support systems and directly at people. Electronic attacks can use not only information systems, but also various kinds of destructive and transmitting devices such as a laser, devices for transmitting an electromagnetic pulse, etc.

3. Electronic protection. Electronic protection includes actions to protect personnel and equipment from the effects of weapons using the electromagnetic environment, including not only information weapons, but also physical devices that use electromagnetic effects for the purpose of physical destruction and causing material damage.

4. Electronic support. Electronic means of support include a variety of systems, devices and operations for the search for definitions, identification, localization in time and space of various kinds of electromagnetic weapons. They also include devices using electromagnetic principles for conducting reconnaissance, goal-setting, planning and interaction during operations on all battlefields and in all spheres of confrontation. The difference between intelligence and electronic support is that intelligence can be carried out outside the electromagnetic environment. In turn, electronic support in its functions goes far beyond intelligence, performing other functions related to the preparation, control and support of combat operations on all battlefields and all spheres of confrontation.

Combat teams. These teams must unite units of different types of troops in order to integrate their combat capabilities for joint military operations. Integrated combat teams must be interdepartmental, integrated, combined and ensure American dominance in all regions at all times.

Risk management in electronic warfare. Three types of risks should be distinguished in the risk management system when conducting operations within the framework of electronic warfare. First, there are direct risks associated with with enemy threats from the electromagnetic environment. Secondly, indirect risks associated with various kinds of failures and failures of military and infrastructure systems that use the electromagnetic environment for their activities. Third, the risks associated with threats arising in other domains and on other battlefields that affect the effectiveness of offensive and defensive actions in the framework of electronic warfare in an electromagnetic environment.

Investments. V At the present time, unfortunately, there is no understanding that the electromagnetic environment, defensive and offensive operations in it, offensive and defensive weapons using the electromagnetic environment and its effects are of decisive and increasing importance for national security in all its aspects, including first of all military and economic security of the country. V As a result of this underestimation, experimental design research and development and their practical implementation in the field of electronic weapons have not yet been carried out in the proper scale and depth. This is partly due to serious planning, management and analysis gaps in this area. However, the main reason lies in the insufficient funding of research and development on weapons using electromagnetic> ffct from the state budget.

Doctrine. V The doctrine of national security and other conceptual documents of the armed forces is completely insufficient attention is paid to the electromagnetic environment, as a decisive environment for armed conflicts and violent confrontations. V these documents still defend the erroneous idea of ​​the role of information interaction as an integrating element, and not a decisive factor in organizing and controlling combat operations, etc. There is a complete lack of understanding of the importance of intelligence and various kinds of infrastructural factors for conducting offensive and defensive operations in the framework of electronic warfare. In fact, the integrating sphere for modern national security is the electromagnetic environment, which is used both for traditional combat operations and for the overwhelming majority of information operations.

Increasing the ability to conduct electronic warfare and increasing its effectiveness. Conducting operations in the course of electronic warfare presupposes, as well as on other battlefields, joint concerted actions, harmonizing strategy and tactics. The lack of understanding of the specifics of the electromagnetic environment and, accordingly, the similarities and differences between electronic warfare and information operations has not only theoretical but also practical significance. The experience of Iraq and Afghanistan has shown that so far military leaders do not fully understand the possibilities of electronic warfare, reducing it only to conducting information operations. At the same time, the experience of these same military companies has shown that the specific military operations of electronic warfare, which distinguish it from other types of military operations, give a significant not only tactical, but also strategic effect.

Necessary conditions for using the potential of the electromagnetic environment. Civilian leaders and military commanders must strive to ensure the effectiveness of e-warfare operations. These efforts should include ongoing training of personnel, both directly involved in the conduct of offensive and defensive electronic warfare operations, and indirectly involved in these operations.

Personnel work. The most important condition for effective offensive and defensive operations of electronic warfare is to improve the professional level, coordination of actions and controllability of military and civilian personnel involved in military operations in an electromagnetic environment. Given the complex nature of operations in modern military operations, raising the professional level and improving the combat skills required in electronic warfare should concern not only those directly involved in defensive and offensive operations in electronic warfare, but also military and civilian personnel of all branches of the armed forces of our countries as well as allies.

Leadership development. The command staff of units directly involved in electronic warfare in the electromagnetic environment should be able to integrate the efforts of all units not only directly involved in electronic warfare, but also using the electromagnetic environment for traditional military operations on all battlefields, information operations, command and control. complex military missions, etc. The commanders of units directly involved in electronic warfare must develop their strategic and operational art based on knowledge, experience and training.

Standardization. For the effective conduct of electronic warfare, it is necessary to develop in detail and enshrine in the relevant mandatory documents a single terminology, organizational, technical and other standards and conditions that ensure the accurate performance of units of their combat missions.

Development of the doctrine of electronic warfare. The current definition of electronic warfare contained in US Joint Doctrine US JP3-13.1 means "various actions involving the use of electromagnetic or direct energy effects in the electromagnetic environment for offensive and defensive purposes." Approximately the same definitions are used abroad. However, this definition does not highlight the decisive importance of the electromagnetic environment for the implementation of offensive and defensive operations in it, special support and reconnaissance operations during electronic warfare, etc. As a rule, instead of the clear, physically meaningful term "electromagnetic environment", the metaphorical term is used "Cyberspace". In our opinion, this in practice leads to an underestimation of physical technologies due to an excessive exaggeration of the role of information technologies. This has a detrimental effect on the combat capabilities of our army. Accordingly, it is necessary to develop the Doctrine of Electronic Warfare, based on the allocation as a separate domain or battlefield not of cyberspace, as at present, but of the electromagnetic environment.

Development of the doctrine of information operations. Information operations are carried out in the information environment across the entire spectrum of military operations, including combat, as well as others, including auxiliary operations. Information is the result of transferring, processing, manipulating and organizing data in order to transform it into knowledge necessary for participants in hostilities. In addition, information operations are aimed at creating a distorted picture of an integrated environment for the adversary through the impact, change, disruption and destruction of human and automated decision-making systems. Information operations play an extremely important role in the overall integrated strategy and just like electronic warfare uses computer and telecommunication networks.

For all their proximity, electronic warfare, information operations and operations in cyberspace are fundamentally different types of military activity. Electronic warfare takes place entirely in an electromagnetic operating environment and represents the practical, instrumental use of electromagnetic energy to achieve physical, informational and cognitive effects. In this regard, we tend to believe that it is the electromagnetic environment, and not cyberspace, that is the fifth battlefield or domain, along with land, sea, air and space. Cyberspace, a term currently used in American military doctrine, is an information medium. However, cyberspace and the electromagnetic operating environment, or domain, share a common understanding. This is immersion in the electromagnetic environment. In practice, electronic wars can be elements of information operations in terms of the impact on the physical parameters of technical devices and humans, considered as sources of processing, storage and transmission of information.

Electromagnetic battlefield. The electromagnetic battlefield is the natural electromagnetic environment, as well as man-made electromagnetic military and civil communications, any devices, mechanisms, etc. that use electromagnetic principles in their work. In order to make the difference between the information environment and the electromagnetic environment more understandable, let us explain. The information medium includes, for example, printed publications, photographs, even paintings. At the same time, not only weapons systems using electromagnetic principles or radars should be included in the electromagnetic environment, but also, for example, refrigerators or irons.

Electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic spectrum is the entire frequency range of electromagnetic radiation - from zero to infinity. This spectrum is divided into zones ranging from ultra-low "short" radio frequencies to X-ray and gamma radiation.

Electromagnetic environment. The electromagnetic environment is the resulting definition that unites all types and frequencies of electromagnetic waves. In fact, the electromagnetic environment is the military equivalent of the physical term "electromagnetic field". Accordingly, the electromagnetic environment, unlike other media and domains, such as land, air, sea, space, permeates and embraces the entire universe.

Electronic warfare. Electronic warfare is defined as any offensive or defensive action in the course of violent coercion or destruction of an adversary that uses electromagnetic effects. Traditionally, e-warfare includes three main components - e-attack, e-defense, and e-war support operations.

Electromagnetic operational domain. Electronic warfare is fought in an electromagnetic operational environment, which is the battlefield of electronic warfare. The electromagnetic operational domain can be defined as the field of action for offensive and defensive weapons, as well as means of support, ranging from intelligence to communications, which use electromagnetic energy to obtain physical, informational and cognitive effects.

Network electromagnetic domain. This definition covers electronic devices, telecommunications networks and the electromagnetic environment used to store, exchange, process or destroy data. With this term, we propose to replace the term "cyberspace" currently used in the National Defense Strategy and the National Defense Strategy for cyberspace operations.

From the book Newspaper Tomorrow 257 (44 1998) author Tomorrow Newspaper

Alexander Prokhanov NTV - "ELECTRONIC KHAZARIA" NTV is the outskirts of Tel Aviv, built in the center of Moscow. This is not a TV program, not electronic media, not a "fourth estate", in addition to the three escheat, thieving, shunted. This is Power itself. Domination,

From the book Newspaper Tomorrow 258 (45 1998) author Tomorrow Newspaper

THE BLACKEST DAY IN THE HISTORY OF NTV IS THE UNLINKING OF THE WAR WITH THE KPRF AND THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE (ELECTRONIC KHAZARIA)

From the book Where is the Crisis of Culture Leading? Experience of interdisciplinary dialogues the author Team of authors

The liberal idea and the "war of discourses" Discussion of the report by Alexey Kara-Murza "How is the" Russian world "possible?" Igor Klyamkin: Today we will discuss the report of Alexey Kara-Murza "How is the 'Russian world' possible?" This is a continuation of the conversation about domestic intellectual

From the book Newspaper Tomorrow 35 (1032 2013) author Tomorrow Newspaper

The Great War of the XX century Andrey Fursov August 29, 2013 2 Politics Army Arsonists and conspirators Quite often, in response to accusations that the USSR is responsible for inciting World War II no less than Hitler, our side follows the path of simple reaction, i.e.

From the book Expert No. 43 (2013) author's Expert Magazine

Electronic surveillance is intensifying Aleksey Grammatchikov Russian special services are establishing stricter control over cellular communications and the Internet: they are planning to make a major "upgrade" of the existing system for tracking mobile calls and e-mails.

From the book Economic War against Russia the author Katasonov Valentin Yurievich

"COLD WAR" - FIRST OF ALL "ECONOMIC WAR" Our country received a break in the "economic war" only for the period 1941-1945, when the anti-Hitler coalition was created, the main participants of which were the USSR, the USA and Great Britain. Have not yet died out

From the book Islam and Politics [Collection of Articles] the author Ignatenko Alexander

From the book Anti-crisis. Survive and conquer the author Katasonov Valentin Yurievich

"Cold war" - first of all "economic war" Our country received a break in the "economic war" only for the period 1941-1945, when the anti-Hitler coalition was created, the main participants of which were the USSR, the USA and Great Britain. Have not yet died out

From the book of Identification the author Svasyan Karen Araevich

From the book, Christ was born in the Crimea. The Mother of God died there. [The Holy Grail is the Cradle of Jesus, which was kept in Crimea for a long time. King Arthur is a reflection of Christ the author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

12.2. Late authors confused the events of the end of the 12th century and the end of the 14th century That is, the era of Christ and the era of Constantine the Great. 4.101. As we have already noted, Tokhtamysh is a reflection of Tsar Khan Dmitry Donskoy. He -

From the book Future Without America author LaRouche Lyndon

Globalism and the situation in Eurasia (From the report "On the Spirit of Russian Science" prepared by Lyndon LaRouche for the International Scientific and Practical Conference "Implementation of the Noospheric Concept in the XXI Century: Russia's Mission in the Today World", November 27-28, 2001, Moscow) ... From the beginning of XX

Western experts began to throw in fake pro-Russian interviews in order to refute them later and report that this was done by "Moscow propagandists"

A few days ago, a link to the article “Former MI6 Head Admitted Defeat to Putin in Strategic Plan of Fragmentation of Russia” appeared on social networks. The article was disguised as a publication on the website of the British newspaper The Guardian, but posted on another website. BuzzFeed News and The Times are wondering where this fake came from and who might be behind it.

“How the fake disguised as an article in The Guardian got into the Russian press” - this is the title of the article in BuzzFeed News. "An absolutely falsified article disguised as a publication in The Guardian and containing sensational allegations attributed to the ex-head of British intelligence was created, probably as propaganda material for the Russian media," journalists Craig Silverman and Jane Litvinenko write, citing opinions experts and the details that BuzzFeed News managed to find out.

“After collecting additional information, BuzzFeed News also discovered that the fake article was linked to a series of other fabricated materials that were framed as if they were from the likes of Haaretz, The Atlantic and Al Jazeera. The same malicious fake domain technique was used to defraud people in fake articles, and all articles were translated from English into Russian for the same Russian news blog, ”the article says.

“All translations are signed with the name“ Eddilyn Lambert ”. A person with a Facebook account in that name told BuzzFeed News in Russian via Facebook Messenger that she had translated the articles. But with the exception that a person with this name is listed as a translator in numerous fake articles on Russian sites and that a Facebook account is maintained under this name, BuzzFeed News was unable to fully confirm that Eddilyn Lambert is a real person. " , - the authors write.

The article was disguised as a publication on the website of the British newspaper The Guardian, but posted on another site

“It is only obvious that someone or a group of people creates fake articles in English, which are designed as if they were published by major international media, and that these articles are almost immediately translated into Russian,” the publication continues.

The authors report: "The article, forged by The Guardian, was titled:" The former head of MI6 admits defeat to Putin in the strategic plan of the fragmentation of Russia. " On Sunday, she began circulating on Twitter and Facebook thanks to a handful of accounts based in Russia. The website itself was a convincing copy of the actual site of The Guardian, and its URL in the word “Guardian” was fraudulently substituted with the letter “i” in the Turkish alphabet to make it appear authentic at first glance. ”

Anne Applebaum, columnist for The Washington Post, “pointed to this fake as an example of" active measures "used by Russian intelligence or its proxy forces to interfere with adversaries. BuzzFeed News was unable to establish any connection between this fake article or other similar material and Russian intelligence, "the authors write.

The journalists tried to figure out who Addilyn Lambert was, who, as indicated on the Pravosudija.net website in Latin letters, translated the article. “Correspondents of BuzzFeed News tracked down a Facebook account of the same name, which allegedly belongs to a young woman living in Germany. Her profile says that she studied at the Sorbonne in Paris. In an interview with BuzzFeed News, the person running the account said they had translated a fake article allegedly from The Guardian. BuzzFeed News was unable to verify that the account is run by a real woman with this name, ”the article says.

Tatiana Volkova, who runs the Pravosudija.net blog, told BuzzFeed News: “Eddilyn Lambert offered me her services through a feedback form. I post some of her translations on my website, others not, depending on the policy of [the article] and [my] resources. "

When Lambert was asked how she got the fake article from The Guardian, she first said that it was sent by a classmate, and then that it was sent by a friend who works at The Guardian. “But Lambert was unable to name the employee of The Guardian, who, according to her, disseminated a fake article, designed to match the articles of the publication where he works. Lambert then provided BuzzFeed News with an extremely dubious screenshot, which allegedly recorded that the fake article was mentioned by the current British ambassador to Turkey. She claimed to have taken the screenshot herself. This Twitter post is not on the Ambassador's timeline. Like the fake article, it contains awkward wording that would hardly be used by a native English speaker, let alone a British ambassador, ”the authors write.

The publication concludes: "It appears that almost certainly a fake 'tweet' was inserted into the ambassador's timeline instead of a real 'tweet' containing an image."

For her part, Lambert said, "Looks like The Guardian has two sites, real and fake, and they did it themselves," and added, "Dirty politics!"

When reporters asked Lambert if she was the author of the fake article from The Guardian, she replied: “What are these questions? It is an insult. A normal person could not write such an analytical article. "

The publication claims: “But the fake of The Guardian is not the first time Lambert took a fake article in English and quickly translated it into Russian for Pravosudija.net. There are several more translation-based articles on her author page, and three of them are based on fake articles disguised as content from Haaretz, Al Jazeera and The Atlantic, "the article says.

“While the evidence suggests there is clearly a concerted effort to create compelling-looking fake articles, allegedly from English and Arabic-language news sites, the content that is fabricated is not politically coherent. The fake article from The Guardian was clearly pro-Kremlin, but others could be interpreted as hostile to the interests of the Russian government. On the whole, it seems that the fake articles were created to fuel international tension, ”the article says.

"Pro-Kremlin falsifiers" posted on the Internet a fake article allegedly from The Guardian "- such is the headline in The Times. Journalist Matthew Moore writes: "There are suspicions that pro-Kremlin specialists were behind the sophisticated 'fake news' article claiming that MI6 had developed a plan to destabilize Russia."

Ben Nimmow, an expert at the Atlantic Council's digital forensics lab, says: “This combination of technical skill and linguistic incompetence is entirely characteristic of the pro-Kremlin’s handwriting, although it’s unclear whether these are official experts like the“ troll factory, ”or independent experts. ... The effort to mimic The Guardian's site has been very skilful, using a fake URL very similar to the real one and links to genuine articles. The [English] language was used much less skillfully, and there are mistakes typical of Russian speakers. The general idea is in harmony with the Kremlin's assertions about Western plans to fragment Russia, especially plans with the support of the CIA. The mention of Great Britain is less frequent, but necessary because the utterances are attributed to Sir John Scarlett. "

Original material: "InoPressa"

"Justice. No" , 14.08.17 , "Where did the material go, or fake news"

On Sunday morning I posted the material, not carefully checking the source, I confess, I relaxed on the occasion of the weekend. Thanks to the attentive reader, the material did not hang out for long. But, if fake news appears, then someone needs it ...

Sir John Scarlett was Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee and Head of MI6 from (2004 to 2009)

I return the material with explanations about which information cover operation this material was part of:

Former MI6 chief admits defeat to Putin in strategic plan for Russia's fragmentation

The guardian: https://goo.gl/7pCH25

It was on these days that the five-day war of Georgia took place 9 years ago. This war had significant political, economic and geopolitical consequences. On the occasion, former MI6 chief John Scarlett, in a special interview with TheGuardian, revealed some of the behind-the-scenes stories surrounding the issue, as well as the Rose Revolution in Georgia a few years later. The Rose Revolution was a collaborative effort between the CIA and MI6, he said, and pursued different goals.

He clarified: “It was assumed that after we brought Saakashvili to power, in order to implement the strategic plan for the fragmentation of Russia and its repeated disintegration in three stages. The first step was the establishment of military and intelligence bases and the deployment of military and security officers in South Ossetia. At the second stage, radical Islamists were to come to power in Dagestan, Chechnya, North Ossetia and Circassia. This part of the plan was followed by joint concrete meetings between the CIA, MI6 and senior officials of the Turkish and Saudi Arabian security forces. If the Islamists retained political power in these regions, practically NATO forces could gain access to the northern mountains of the Caucasus region.

The third step, as expected, would be started after the stabilization of military and PMC bases in Ukraine. It was planned that as a result of the coordination of the efforts of the US and British security services, a fictitious quarrel would occur between Ukraine and Russia, and then, with the intervention of American and British forces, NATO would take control of the North Caucasus and all Russian shores, along with the Black Sea. We believed that this stage of the operation would be completed by the official admission of Ukraine and Georgia to NATO membership, and practically Russia would face another collapse. "

John Scarlett continued: “The revolution in Georgia ended in victory [for the security services], and Saakashvili came to power. He called for NATO membership, which was included in the NATO summit agenda through our mediation. Unfortunately, however, the 2008 war in Georgia became Moscow's iron fist against our biggest strategic plan in the Caucasus. The CIA bases, which supposedly wanted to be located in South Ossetia, were incapacitated in Tbilisi. On the other hand, the first steps were prepared for the second stage, but Putin's next blow in Chechnya and the scorched earth tactics thwarted all plans in the North Caucasus.

Although the crisis in Ukraine and Russia has escalated in stages, Putin has dealt a third fatal blow to this strategic plan by integrating Crimea into Russia; And he disappointed us in [the possibility of implementing the plans for] the division of Russia, and practically the operation was terminated. "

“I have to admit that due to the two Georgian and Crimean wars, the most strategic plan of the US and Great Britain to disintegrate Russia in the past few years has ended in failure,” added the former head of MI6.

He said: “As far as I know, big plans are underway to revitalize this goal. However, at that time, Yeltsin's passive approach in Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus made us hope for a final victory. The Rose Revolution in Georgia and Ukraine was the result of Yeltsin's inaction, but after Putin came to power, with his unpredictable personality, he thwarted all our plans in the two Georgian and Crimean wars. "

"Now I believe that although Putin, by intervening in Syria, tried to transfer military and security threats to Russia outside the border of this country, the forces of Takfiri and ISIS can use the theory of bee attack to incapacitate this strong bear," he finished the words of the former British security official.

Translation: Addilyn Lambert

T.V.- The theory of "bee attack" or "bee swarm attack" is used, for example, in a coordinated drone attack.

https://habrahabr.ru/post/104055/

Particle or Agent - Each bee in the swarm is treated as a particle or agent. All particles of the swarm act individually according to one governing principle: accelerate towards the best personal and best overall position, constantly checking the value of the current position.

In our particular case, all newcomers to the territory of the Russian Federation, paid for and trained by Saudi Arabia, so-called. "Islamic preachers", all ISIS militants, carefully moved and accumulated by the CIA and NATO officers in the Pankisi Gorge in Georgia, pursue one goal - to destabilize Russia, provoke a military conflict with neighbors with the aim of joining the war of NATO countries and the occupation of southern Russia, the Caucasus and the Black Sea coast.

« Participant in secrets»Preparation of the war with Russia by the US and UK special services in 2008, the former President of Georgia M. Saakashvili, feeling behind his back the support of foreign special services, makes hard-hitting statements and direct threats against the leadership of Ukraine.

https://ria.ru/world/20170812/1500250754.html

MOSCOW, August 12 - RIA Novosti. The former president of Georgia and the ex-governor of the Odessa region delivered an ultimatum to the Ukrainian authorities: either he will be given back his citizenship, or “it will not seem enough for them”. This was stated in a telephone conversation with the deputy head of the administration, although in fact he communicated with Russian prankers.

... It follows from his words that he has already addressed the President of Ukraine in connection with the deprivation of citizenship.

“He doesn't know who he was dealing with yet. I wrote to him here, by the way: you probably forgot who I am ?! I have a lot of energy, a lot of connections, a big name. I will use all this for specific, definite purposes against these oligarchic types, ”continued the former Odessa governor.

Saakashvili spoke with prankers from Hungary. Prior to that, he visited Lithuania and Poland.

Of course, the actions of M. Saakashvili already strongly resemble the blackmail of their former masters, who apparently dedicated him to some details of the 2008 operation. Here one can only rejoice, let Mishiko speak as much as possible, preferably giving the names of his curators from the CIA. The fact that only countries such as Poland, Lithuania and Hungary, where the CIA feels most at ease in Europe, are now allowed to enter their territories, speaks of two things - firstly, Saakashvili, as a burned out agent, has already exhausted his resource, and, secondly, that not the best times for the CIA in Europe have come ...

Well, Russia will continue to unravel the consequences of the coups d'etat in Georgia and Ukraine for a long time to come.

P. S. Due to the fact that M. Saakashvili, finding himself without a passport, is now forced to tour with concerts only in those countries where the positions of the CIA (and the Jesuits) are strong: these are Poland, Lithuania, Hungary and other countries of the former Warsaw bloc. Perhaps in the near future he will still go to Croatia for a vacation, where the positions of the CIA and the Jesuits are strong, and where Irina Berezhnaya, a promising and young Ukrainian politician, was recently killed by the methods of special services.

Given the addiction to stimulant substances and intemperance in the language of Mikhail Nikolozovich, it is only a matter of time before he accidentally or deliberately highlights the organization that brought him to power, first in Georgia, and then in Ukraine. It will light up with all the guts, with details and the names of the curators. He will show the world the seamy side of color revolutions in its most unsightly form ... And all this against the backdrop of the scandal in the United States about "Russian interference in the elections."

So, instead of denying that they did it, the interested persons from the special services will begin to deny that they said it. The principle is simple - you cannot shut up a sensitive topic - blab it by throwing fake news, which can then be easily refuted. So, even if John Scarlett did not say this, then he and his subordinates did and continue to make color revolutions. The operation to destabilize Russia through the destabilization of the Caucasus from the territory of Georgia was not completely stopped, but only suspended, and now resumed in full.