Modern scientific approaches to the study of the technology of non-violent overthrow of political regimes

The topic related to the study of the theory and practice of non-violent overthrow of power is debatable. In the expert community, there are different opinions about the reasons for the origin of the technology of non-violent overthrow of power, and the so-called. "non-violent revolutions". At the same time, when studying the works of various authors, three main approaches to the non-violent overthrow of political regimes in states with unstable forms of democracy can be distinguished 1.

Proponents of the first approach believe that the countries of the "Western" civilization, led by the United States, need to exercise control over territories and resources, as well as forms of state and political structure of countries and regions in accordance with their geopolitical interests.

In this group, the most significant are the concepts of American authors who are authoritative statesmen and politicians of the USA in the XX-XXI centuries: Z. Brzezinski, G. Kissinger, M. E. McFaul , J. Nye , S. Huntington , G. Sharp 2.

Most of them, in addition to the results of their theoretical research, use the experience gained over many years of work in the Pentagon, the State Department, the White House, the National Intelligence Council, the National Security Council and the highest diplomatic posts. This confirms both the scientific and theoretical significance and the practical application of the results of their scientific research. The works of these authors present an ideological justification for the change of political regimes that do not meet the geopolitical interests of the United States. The transit of Western-style democracy is seen as part of the foreign policy strategy and a matter of US national security. At the same time, supporters of the first approach are convinced that only the United States (and its allies) can ensure world order and stability. “A world without United States dominance will have more violence and disorder and less democracy and economic growth than a world where the United States continues to influence global issues more than any other country. The continued international primacy of the United States is most important to the welfare and security of Americans and to the future of freedom, democracy, open economies, and international order on earth” 3.

The ideologue of US foreign policy in the last quarter of the 20th and early 21st centuries, National Security Adviser to the US President Z. Brzezinski argues that America is “the only superpower” and there is no real alternative to the triumph of American hegemony and the role of US power as an indispensable component of global security” 4.

Accordingly, being the "guarantor" of the world order, America has the right to influence the national policy of any state that is in the sphere of its geostrategic interests. According to the author, “American global hegemony is now a fact of life. No one, including America itself, has a choice in this matter 5. "Other acceptance of American leadership is a sine qua non for avoiding chaos"6.

Z. Brzezinski believes that "the global superiority of America directly depends on how long and effectively its superiority on the Eurasian continent will be maintained"

• ⁷.    The author pays special attention to the latter, comparing it with a chessboard on which the struggle for world domination continues ⁸. And in this struggle, the United States needs to rely on Europe (Western and partly Eastern), since, first of all, these countries are "the most important geopolitical foothold of America on the European continent" ⁹. The zone of Eurasian instability Brzezinski calls the territory, which includes the regions of South-Eastern Europe, Central Asia and parts of South Asia, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. The role of the United States, in his opinion, is decisive in maintaining stability in this region. "Although there is no stability in most of the states located in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, the last arbiter in this region is American power" ¹⁰. It should be noted that it was in these areas that the

majority of non-violent overthrows of power or the so-called. revolutions (with the exception of non-violent coups in the states of North Africa). At the same time, “American power” means not only the ability of external pressure on the internal and foreign policy processes in the country, but also the possibility of unifying the cultural, social and economic structure of these countries according to the Western liberal democratic model.

Z. Brzezinski considers the countries of the post-Soviet space, especially Ukraine, to be one of the main geostrategic directions for the spread of American influence. The author says that Ukraine's determination to maintain its independence (after the collapse of the USSR) was facilitated by outside support. It further emphasizes that “the West needs to further strengthen ties with Kiev in the field of economy and security and in the period 2005-2015. start initiating the gradual inclusion of Ukraine in the EU and NATO 11.

When studying the technology of non-violent overthrow of power, the work of J. Sharp "From Dictatorship to Democracy: Strategy and Practice of Liberation" deserves special attention, which, among other things, proposes a technology for implementing the geopolitical doctrines declared by Z. Brzezinski. The book presents "a brief analysis of the paths that lead to the collapse of the dictatorship where the people are oppressed and they strive for freedom" 12. The author suggests possible methods and tools to counter the authorities, paying special attention to the so-called non-violent methods and technologies for transforming the political regime. He relies on mass non-violent resistance to the regime by the population and public structures, emphasizing that "non-violent struggle can be much more powerful than it seems" 13. According to J. Sharp, this is the only way that can be effectively used by the "oppressed population" against the "dictatorship".

The American J.S. Nye , the author of the concept of "soft power", can also be called the ideologist of the technology of non-violent overthrow of power. When implementing scenarios of "non-violent revolutions" or non-violent overthrow of power, "soft power" is a technology for expanding the sphere of ideological influence through the penetration of Western socio-cultural and spiritual models into the daily life of society. This is another method by which the ambitious tasks set by Z. Brzezinski and other American politicians are being implemented. The main task of "soft power" is the spread of the Western-style liberal-democratic culture. In other words, J. Nye 's concept excludes direct military intervention, replacing it with ideological expansion. In this dissertation research “soft power” is considered exclusively as one of the tools of the technology of non-violent revolutions used to transform political regimes. Within the framework of the dissertation, it is not possible to cover the entire range of issues related to the use of the concept of “oft power”, which has become an important factor in modern international relations and a constructive method of diplomacy.

Supporters of the second approach include authors who define "color revolutions" or non-violent methods as a coup d'état organized in the interests of the countries of the Euro-Atlantic community: A. E. Gapich , S. G. Kara-Murza, J. Chiesa , J. Lafland , A. V. Manoilo , E. G. Ponomareva, L. L. Fituni , A. I. Fursov, U. Engdahl and others ¹⁴.

S. G. Kara-Murza in the work “Export of the Revolution. Yushchenko, Saakashvili…” explores in detail the phenomenon of nonviolent revolutions and their role in international politics in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The study emphasizes that the creators of the technology of changing political regimes, disguised as a revolutionary process "from below", are the United States and its European partners. “By the end of the 1980s. in the political practice of the United States and its allies, a new technology was developed and tested for purposeful destabilization and change of power in various countries without direct violence (the so-called "velvet revolutions") or with minimal use of violence 15. Separately, the author notes the use of non-violent technologies in "the territory of the former USSR in the republics closely connected with the Russian Federation (Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan)" 16, thereby indicating the threats that color revolutions carry.

According to A. I. Fursov, the West plays a decisive role in carrying out non-violent revolutions. The author believes that the situation in Ukraine is on a par with the situation in Syria. “Moreover, if there were disagreements on the Syrian issue in the world capitalist elite - there was an influential group that did not want the conflict in Syria to escalate and turn it into a regional war - then on the Ukrainian issue the West spoke as a single entity.

The opinion that Western political structures play a significant role in the implementation of scenarios for non-violent revolutions is shared by the Italian journalist, writer and public figure J. Chiesa. In one of his articles, he noted: “The European Commission and European structures organized a coup in Kiev, they organized it themselves and participated in it together with the United States” 17.

Proponents of the third approach D. Arel, A. M. Vasiliev, V. Ya. Gelman, I. D. Zvyagelskaya, B. Yu. Kagarlitsky, G. Kurt, N. K. Svanidze, V. D. Solovey ¹⁸ and others consider the technology of non-violent overthrow of power as a natural process of democracy development that meets the needs of the population and contributes to the restoration of democratic rights and freedoms. According to the authors, the reasons for the shift of the ruling regime are social protest and the consolidation of the masses against the authorities, provoked by the aggravation of internal socio-economic problems.

• B.    Yu. Kagarlitsky says that “the masses who are drawn into the whirlpool of the revolutionary process have their own interests and their own ideas about the

reorganization of society. Society is changing, the economic situation is changing, a new situation is emerging, and most importantly, new social needs are being formed, to which the institutions of power no longer categorically correspond 19.

This point of view regarding the internal causes of non-violent revolutions is supported by N. K. Svanidze: “From the outside it is impossible to destabilize the situation in any country if it does not destabilize itself from the inside” 20.

Head of the Representative Office of the Foundation Friedrich Ebert in Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus, G. Kurt also believes in the decisive role of the “people's courage of Ukrainian citizens” in the color revolution of 2004. According to him, the “Orange Revolution” and the election of V. Yushchenko as President of Ukraine became important steps in the struggle for democracy, independence and justice.

“The non-violent uprising of the Ukrainian people and the resilience they have shown deeply shocked the international community” 21.

Comparison and analysis of theoretical and methodological approaches show that the supporters of the first and second of them not only do not contradict each other, but rather talk about the same thing, only defending the interests of different countries. It is obvious that the doctrines of Z. Brzezinski, G. Sharpe, J. Nye and others “about American superiority, which gave rise to a new international order that produces many features of the American system abroad” 22, and the need to maintain and expand this superiority, meet the strategic interests of the United States while threatening the interests, sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries. Proponents of the second approach warn about this threat, speaking of the need for adequate measures to counter color revolutions as coup d'état initiated from outside. At the same time, the authors of the second approach do not deny the assertions made by the supporters of the third approach that internal socio -economic and political problems and contradictions contribute to the growth of the revolutionary situation.

However, it emphasizes that external players use internal problems (which exist in any country) as an excuse to start non-violent revolutions. Considering the previous conclusions, the position of the proponents of the third approach does not cover the entire wide range of issues that arise when studying the problem of non-violent overthrow of power.

Based on a comprehensive analysis of all the above points of view, it seems logical to conclude that the technologies of non-violent overthrow of power are a way of forced transformation of political power and are carried out during socio-political destabilization in the country.