State information-psychological warfare regulation
This article dwells on basic scientific research problems of forms and methods of state regulation of such a social hostile notion for modern society as information-psychological warfare. Nowadays technologies of latent psychological influence on mass and individual mentality are not only widely used in political struggle but they also replace traditional forms of armed struggle in modern wars and local conflicts. Meanwhile, neither of current research defines the essence of information-psychological warfare as a political conflict, nor as a social notion, that may be the main reason of inefficiency of selected means and methods of political regulation of this category of social relations. It is essential to alter a current concept of state information policy so that it can be adapted to new conditions of information-psychological warfare. However, it is necessary to take into consideration that information-psychological warfare, as a stable social notion, cannot be extirpated at this stage of social evolution. Whereas state regulation can maintain a stable level of social danger monitored by society.
The research into the patterns of social evolution shows that world is on the edge of global information society, society of civilized changes, fundamental changes in all spheres of personal and social life are predicted. It is vital to have adjusted state information policy during information society formation. It meaning becomes more important under conditions of information struggle and especially under conditions of information warfare. So, Information Security Doctrine of the RF [1] considers that working out information warfare concepts by a number of states as external threats to security of the Russian Federation; “The Basis for State Policy in the Sphere of Information-Psychological Security Implementation” written by Security Council of the RF [2] define state information policy under information warfare as a central component of a system of information-psychological security implementation, but at the same time the document points out inefficiency of employed basic principles, means and methods of existent information policy under acute information-psychological conflicts; Parliamentary Hearings “Threats and Challenges in the Sphere of Information Security” [3] point out not only inefficiency of current state information policy under psychological warfare, but they also assume the possible reason for this inefficiency can be principal inapplicability of general forms and methods of political regulation under special or peculiar conditions that information-psychological warfare creates. A number of factors define urgency of effective forms and methods of state government at the scientific and practical levels under psychological warfare. First, nowadays it is necessary for Russia to create an effective state counteraction system for opposing to operations of information-psychological warfare (IPW), which foreign states regard as an effective tool for implementation of external policy. According to this task it is essential to create such a model of state and social evolution that would allow a system of social, political, psychological relations of modern Russian society to evolve stable, steady and intensively under conditions when political sphere of created information society turns into sphere of information opposition. That is, information-psychological conflicts of high intensity and social danger. The problem that one faces in this sphere is defined by contradiction between the objective necessity of creating such a system and the low level of modern Russian society readiness to oppose actively to any attempts of manipulating social perception. Mass population is learning to understand the threat of modern complex technologies with latent information-psychological influence employed for reaching political goals. Information-psychological warfare influences intensively on existent or objective created contradictions at practically all levels of state or social system in any country or any region aiming at their compulsory appearance with the prescribed intensity level and in the determined direction. The modern system of social, political, and psychological relations in the Russian society and its existent mechanisms of self-preservation, regulation, and security could not stop evolution of such a special category of information-psychological conflicts as information-psychological warfare. That is, information-psychological conflict cannot be a “signal” conflict in the modern Russian society, because it evolves latent especially for those participants, who take part in it. Thus, it is difficult not only to reveal it early in the development, but also to reveal and solve contradictions that resulted in the conflict duly in time. That is an existent system of social relations is favorable for information-psychological warfare. Second, examining modern information-psychological warfare as a means of hostile political compulsion and a form of violence, researchers try to find panacea to this illness that affected society in working out prohibitions and restrictions. For instance, on developing and use of information weapons. But they meet contradictions; information-psychological warfare is based on using basic elements and means of social communication like other social processes for its complex organizational technologies of latent information-psychological influence. Thus, it is a sort of social relations, social notions, a natural stage of escalation of a social conflict under conditions when civil society has transformed to a new information evolution stage but has not worked out operational mechanisms of monitoring headily evolving new forms and types of social relations yet. The current problem in this sphere is defined by contradictions between objective necessity in forceful restriction of employing means, methods, and technologies of information-psychological warfare in political praxis and lack of understanding that it is impossible to eliminate information-psychological warfare as a social notion and a sort of a social conflict, but sources of IPW can be restrained by methods of state regulation. Nowadays information-psychological warfare is one of ill-studied types of a social conflict. The reasons for its appearance, evolution and fading (information conflict genesis) are defined by psychology of social relations. To our mind, information-psychological warfare is a result of objective, logical, predictable evolution of conflict germ situation. According to science of information conflicts it should evolve through intermediate stages before conflict transforms to warfare. Thus, the intermediate stages have their own Achilles’ heel for external stabilizing influence. Third, during forming of information society information-psychological influence is the most effective and universal tool of internal and external policy that gives participants, which take part in political struggle, a unique (including forceful) opportunity for latent management of a political system, hurting political opponents and their manipulation to suit their own ends. That is, an opportunity desirable for all political forces. Aspirations of political elite (there is a number of customers of these services among political elite of highly developed countries, and the number of consumers is constantly rising) lead to quick development and perfection of organizational, technological methods and forms of information-psychological warfare, that is, a compulsory element of political struggle. The current problem situation in this sphere is defined by a gap between development of organization technologies of information-psychological aggression and technologies of psychological mentality protection, a system of values, and psychic society health from negative psychological influence. Forth, under information society information-psychological warfare is a segment of politics and the system of political relations, because it is a political conflict in its essence. It appears as a result of a conflict between two or more diversed political forces aiming at solving contradictions on account of power and political government, also on the occasion of distribution of their roles, place, and functions in the political system of information society, where conflict sides employ information-psychological operations using information weapons. Information-psychological warfare is a highly developed form of a political conflict that includes all existent forms of political struggle. That is, a new level of a structural organization of political relations, research of the essence and content of which is necessary for defining course of internal and external policy of the Russian Federation. Under information-psychological warfare social-political processes and conflicts are a priority sphere of management that easily transforms in essential directions as a result of using latent information-psychological influence technologies. Fifth, nowadays only state is capable to provide effective social protection and its citizens from massive external information-psychological aggression. State Information Policy (SIP) occupies a central place in the system of information-psychological security implementation, which fulfills functions of management of social-political relations system through approved by Russian Government measures, procedures, and information-psychological influence technologies on individuals, mentality of people, different social groups, social systems and the society. Meanwhile, nowadays SIP is at the stage of forming, search and testing of new methods, means, and state management technologies, which are effective under conditions of information society. The current problem in this sphere is defined by contradictions between objective necessity in social protection from SIP operations and lack in effective mechanisms of protection implementation in the SIP system. To our point of view, the inefficiency of existent state information policy in conditions of dynamic and sometimes low predictable affect of modern factors of geopolitical competition, globalization, and forms of acute information counteraction results in necessity of changing the whole concept of modern information policy aiming at its adaptation to modern conditions, under which information society is forming. Thus, there are some peculiarities in its realization and necessity in working out special methods and mechanisms of political influence, which are adequate to those revolutionary changes that occur in the system of social-political relations in the society. The actuality of research of forms and methods of state regulation in conditions of psychological warfare is also confirmed: by a threat of appearance and wide distribution of new forms of political extremism based on using of modern means of information-psychological warfare; a threat of employing modern forms of political violence aiming at imposing of external political course that is harmful for Russia. Moreover, a threat of turning Russia into a raw appendix, a source of information and intellectual resources for highly-developed countries (information dominants), a threat of national mentality and Russian culture destruction, a system of values, psychical health damage, their affects on national gene pool. At present we have sufficient experience of scientific research in the sphere of state information policy, information counteraction and information-psychological warfare. Information-psychological warfare as a factor of external policy is examined like diplomatic, economical, and armed struggle, but at the same time as an independent trend of research. The notion “information warfare” was taken into account after introduction of the term “information warfare” in the documents of US Department of Defense in 1990, and then it was widely spread in scientific works [4]. Researches of information warfare can be divided into three groups according to their attitudes towards it: The first group of scientists (social-communicative attitude) regard the notion of information warfare as separate information measures, information means and methods of corporate competition, conduct of interstate counteraction, armed struggle, communication influence technologies on mass mentality [5]. The second group of scientists, practically representatives of military departments both foreign and Russian, assume that information warfare is a sphere of war counteraction and define it as complex joint use of means and forces of information and armed struggle (military-operational approach) [6]. However, a number of scientists are against this approach and point out the fact that the definition of “information warfare” in respect of modern information means of conducting a war is not appropriate, and it would be better to define this type of military activities as information struggle, regarding it as an information component of military operations [7]. The third group of researchers assume that information warfare is a notion of a false peaceful period of interstate counteraction aiming at solving foreign policy tasks by applying traditional non-forceful methods. It is within this group’s framework that a lot of Russian scientists refer information warfare to a sphere of geopolitical counteraction and regard it as a specific type of interstate relations, under which for solving modern counteraction methods, means, and forceful influence technologies on information sphere of these states are employed (geopolitical approach) [8]. Thus, they point out violent character of activities during information warfare, which is an obligatory feature of a war but which lack when there is no open armed conflict. However, to our Point of view, none of the three above mentioned approaches reveals the essence of information-psychological warfare as a political conflict or as a social notion, that may be the main reason for inefficiency of selected modern means and methods of political regulation of this category of social relations. In the first case the category of the war is unclear- this category includes practically all forms of communication both political and social one. There is no convincing ground for social danger of this notion and explanations of why these forms of social interaction were related to a war. As a result, for eliminating reasons of psychological warfare it is essential to remove from social relations (or put under tough control) any form of information exchange that influences mentality. In the second case information-psychological warfare pursues narrow-directed goals of military counteraction, and its origin is referred to political reasons of war conflict. Nevertheless, information-psychological warfare is nowadays used alone in diplomatic struggle in peaceful time, which excludes application of traditional measures of armed counteraction. Thus, it defines inefficiency of state information policy, which regards information-psychological warfare as a part of traditional armed counteraction and which doesn’t take into consideration other non-military reasons for information-political conflicts. It is noteworthy to point out that English specialists assume that a military concept of information warfare is less dangerous in respect to a war, which is carried out by using influence of psychological and diplomatic technologies, mass media on mentality, points of view, and intentions of the adversary who can be both military-political leadership and the population at large [4]. In the third case information warfare is defined as a peculiar type of interstate relations. Well, to our point of view, the expressed danger of information warfare doesn’t give grounds for considering it beyond the category of political conflicts. Thus the social essence of information-psychological warfare is not defined, the first group of researchers gave its most comprehensible definition. Violence, a feature of information warfare, helps to define boundaries of this notion, but concentrates attention of state policy on search of counteraction methods to forceful influence (that is difficult to reveal). That is why leadership is not about to manage this social notion and regulate its social danger. Research of principles and patterns of state information policy implementation in conditions of information-psychological warfare does not exist in contrast to worked out subject of information warfare.
Literature
- Information Security Doctrine of the RF // Russian newspaper. 28.09.2000
- Ground for Information Policy in the Sphere of Information-Psychological Security Implementation. Project. Worked out by request of Security Council of the RF. Moscow: Institute of Psychology of Russian Academy of Sciences. 2000
- “Threats and challenges in the Sphere of Information Security”. Materials of Parliamentary Hearings in State Duma FS RF, SD SF of Russia. 1996
- Libicki M. C. What is Information Warfare? Washington, D. C. national Defense University Press, 1995; Stein
- Brusnitsin N. A. Information Warfare and Security. Moscow: Vita-Press, 2001. p.9; Pocheptsov G. G. Information Warfare. Kiev: Vakler, 2000. p. 200; rastorguev S. P. Information Warfare. Moscow: Radio and Svyaz, 1998; Pirumov V. S., Rodionov M. A. Several Aspects of Information Struggle in War Conflicts// Voennaya Mysl. 1997. ¹5; Tsybmal V. I. About Information Warfare // Information collected stories “Security”. Moscow, 1995, ¹9, p.35; Prochozev A. A., Turko N. I. Ground of Information Warfare// System Analysis on the edge of XXI century: theory and praxis. Moscow, 1996. p. 252-253; Verentsov A. Non-forceful means: the USA improve methods of Information Warfare. EVNVO, ¹ 016 (139) from April 30, 1999.
- Panarin I. N. Technology of Information Warfare. Moscow: KSP+, 2003, 320 p.; Information Warfare and Russia, “World of Security”, Moscow, 2001; Information Warfare and World. Moscow: Olma-Press, 2003, 384 p.; Information Warfare: Theory and Practice. Moscow: Manpower Policy, ¹2, 2002; Szafranski R. A. Theory of Information Warfare: Preparing for 2020//Airpower Journal. Spring 1995; Komov S. A. Information Struggle in Modern Warfare: Theory Questions// “Military Idea”, 1996, ¹3, p. 73.
- Grinyaev S. N. Warfare in the fourth sphere: NVO. 2000, ¹42, p. 7; Modestov S. A. Warfare, to which America is preparing: Evolution of armed struggle in the informative age. EVNG, ¹048 dated from March 14, 1996; Pirumov V. S., Rodionov M. A. Several Aspects of Information Struggle in Military Conflicts// “Military Idea”, 1997, ¹3.
- Streltsov A. A. Information Security Implementation in the RF. Theoretical and methodology grounds. – Moscow: MTsNMO, 2002; Principles concerning International Information Security. Project. Ministry of International Affairs of the RF, 2000.