Meaning of the word escalation. Escalation - what is it? Concept of escalation of conflict, dispute, violence

Expansion, increase, strengthening, aggravation, growth Dictionary of Russian synonyms. escalation see extension Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. Practical guide. M.: Russian language. Z. E. Alexandrova ... Synonym dictionary

- [English] escalation of letters. ascent using a ladder] expansion, build-up, increase in something, INTENSIFICATION. Dictionary of foreign words. Komlev N.G., 2006. escalation (English escalation buke, ascent using a ladder) gradual... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

- (English escalation) expansion, build-up (of armaments, etc.), gradual strengthening, spread (of conflict, etc.), aggravation (of situations, etc.) ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

ESKALA IYA, i, w. (book). Increase, growth, expansion. E. military actions. E. arms race. Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

- (from English escalation expand) English. escalation; German Escalation. Expansion, build-up (of armaments), spread (of conflict), aggravation of (the country's situation). Antinazi. Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2009 ... Encyclopedia of Sociology

- (English escalation) expansion, buildup (of armaments, etc.), gradual strengthening, spread (of conflict, etc.), aggravation (of situations, etc.). Political science: Dictionary reference book. comp. Prof. Science Sanzharevsky I.I.. 2010 ... Political science. Dictionary.

English escalation gradual increase, expansion, growth. Dictionary of business terms. Akademik.ru. 2001... Dictionary of business terms

Escalation- (Escalation) Escalation is an increase, expansion, intensification, spread of something. What does escalation of a dispute, conflict, incident, war, tension or issue mean Contents >>>>>>>>> Escalation is, definition is... Investor Encyclopedia

- (English Escalation, lit. ascent using a ladder) expansion, buildup (of armaments, etc.), gradual strengthening, spread (of conflict, etc.), aggravation (of situations, etc.). Concept... ... Wikipedia

AND; and. [English] escalation] Gradual intensification, increase, expansion of something. E. aggression. E. military actions. E. international tension. * * * escalation, expansion, build-up (of armaments, etc.), gradual strengthening... encyclopedic Dictionary

- (English escalation) expansion, build-up (of armaments, etc.), spread (of conflict, etc.), aggravation (of situations, etc.) ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Books

Colombian drama. The breakdown of society, the escalation of terror, the search for peace, M. L. Chumakova. The book examines the origins, dynamics and causes of the escalating intrastate conflict that has torn apart the largest country in the Andean subregion for almost 40 years. Analysis of complex...
Ethnicity and religion in modern conflicts. The monograph is devoted to the study of modern ethnic and religious conflicts in a number of the most important regions of the world (Europe, Canada, Central Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, India). In it...

Escalation is an increase, expansion, strengthening, spreading of something

What does it mean to escalate a dispute, conflict, incident, war, tension or issue?

Expand contents

Collapse content

Escalation is the definition

Escalation is term (from the English Escalation, lit. ascent using a ladder), denoting a gradual increase, increase, build-up, aggravation, expansion of something. The term became widespread in the Soviet press in the 1960s in connection with the expansion of US military aggression in Indochina. Used in relation to armed conflicts, disputes, and various problems.

Escalation is gradual increase, growth, expansion, build-up (of armaments, etc.), spread (of conflict, etc.), aggravation of the situation.

Escalation is consistent and steady increase, increase, intensification, expansion of struggle, conflict, aggression.

Escalation is expansion, build-up, increase in something, intensification.

Escalation of conflict is the development of a conflict that progresses over time; escalation of confrontation, in which the subsequent destructive effects of opponents on each other are more intense than the previous ones.

Escalation of war is a militaristic concept of the gradual transformation of a military-political conflict into a crisis situation and war.

Problem escalation is raising a problem for discussion to a higher level if it is impossible to solve it at the current level.

Customs tariff escalation is increase in customs duty rates depending on the degree of processing of goods.

The tariff structure of many countries primarily protects domestic producers of finished goods, especially without preventing the import of raw materials and semi-finished products.

For example, nominal and effective tariffs on food products are 4.7 and 10.6%, respectively, in the United States, 25.4 and 50.3% in Japan, and 10.1 and 17.8% in the European Union. Almost twice the actual level of food taxation over the nominal level is achieved by imposing import duties on the food products from which they are produced. Therefore, it is the effective, and not the nominal level of customs protection that is the subject of negotiations during trade conflicts between the three centers of a modern market economy.

Tariff escalation is an increase in the level of customs taxation of goods as the degree of their processing increases.

The higher the percentage increase in the tariff rate as you move from raw materials to finished products, the higher the degree of protection of finished product manufacturers from external competition.

Tariff escalation in developed countries stimulates the production of raw materials in developing countries and preserves technological backwardness, since only with raw materials, the customs tax of which is minimal, can they really break into their market. At the same time, the market for finished products is practically closed to developing countries due to significant tariff escalation that takes place in most developed countries.

So, a customs tariff is an instrument of trade policy and state regulation of the country’s domestic market in its interaction with the world market; a systematized set of rates of customs duties applied to goods transported across the customs border, systematized in accordance with the commodity nomenclature of foreign economic activity; a specific rate of customs duty payable upon the export or import of a specific product into the customs territory of a country. Customs duties can be classified according to the method of collection, object of taxation, nature, origin, types of rates and method of calculation. Customs duty is imposed on the customs value of the goods - the normal price of the goods, formed on the open market between independent seller and buyer, at which it can be sold in the country of destination at the time of filing the customs declaration.

The nominal duty rate is indicated in the import tariff and only approximately indicates the level of customs protection of the country. The effective tariff rate shows the actual level of customs duty on final imported goods, calculated taking into account the duties imposed on imports of intermediate goods. To protect national producers of finished products and stimulate the import of raw materials and semi-finished products, tariff escalation is used - increasing the level of customs taxation of goods as the degree of their processing increases.

For example: the level of customs taxation of leather goods built according to the principle of the production chain (hide - leather - leather products) increases as the degree of processing of the skin increases. In the USA, the tariff escalation scale is 0.8-3.7-9.2%, in Japan - 0-8.5-12.4, in the European Union - 0-2.4-5.5%. According to GATT, tariff escalation is especially severe in developed countries.

Imports of developed countries from developing countries (import tariff rate, %)

Conflict escalation

Conflict escalation (from the Latin scala - “ladder”) refers to the development of a conflict that progresses over time; escalation of confrontation, in which the subsequent destructive effects of opponents on each other are more intense than the previous ones. The escalation of a conflict represents that part of it that begins with an incident and ends with a weakening of the struggle, the transition to the end of the conflict.

The escalation of the conflict is characterized by the following signs:

1. Narrowing of the cognitive sphere in behavior and activity. In the process of escalation, a transition occurs to more primitive forms of display.

2. Displacement of adequate perception of another, by the image of the enemy.

The image of the enemy as a holistic idea of the opponent, which integrates distorted and illusory features, begins to form during the latent period of the conflict as a result of perception determined by negative assessments. As long as there is no counteraction, as long as the threats are not implemented, the image of the enemy is indirect. It can be compared to a weakly developed photograph, where the image is fuzzy and pale.

In the process of escalation, the image of the enemy appears more and more clearly and gradually displaces the objective image.

The image of the enemy that dominates in a conflict situation is evidenced by:

Mistrust;

Placing blame on the enemy;

Negative expectation;

Identification with evil;

The “zero-sum” view (“whatever benefits the enemy harms us,” and vice versa);

Deindividuation (“anyone who belongs to a given group is automatically our enemy”);

Refusal of condolences.

The image of the enemy is reinforced by:

Increase in negative emotions;

Expectation of destructive actions from the other party;

Negative stereotypes and attitudes;

The seriousness of the object of the conflict for the person (group);

Duration of the conflict.

Arises as a reaction to an increase in the threat of possible damage; decreased controllability of the opposite side; inability to realize your interests to the desired extent in a short time; opponent's resistance.

4. Transition from arguments to claims and personal attacks.

When people's opinions collide, people usually try to argue for them. Others, assessing a person’s position, thereby indirectly assess his ability to argue. A person usually adds significant personal color to the fruits of his intellect. Therefore, criticism of the results of his intellectual activity can be perceived as a negative assessment of him as a person. In this case, criticism is perceived as a threat to a person’s self-esteem, and attempts to defend oneself lead to a shift in the subject of the conflict to the personal plane.

5. The growth of the hierarchical rank of interests is violated and defended, its polarization.

More intense action affects the other party's more important interests. Therefore, the escalation of the conflict can be considered as a process of deepening contradictions, i.e. as the process of growth of the hierarchical rank of interests is disrupted.

In the process of escalation, the interests of opponents seem to be drawn into opposite poles. If in the pre-conflict situation they could somehow coexist, then when the conflict escalates, the existence of some is possible only by ignoring the interests of the other side.

6. Use of violence.

A characteristic sign of conflict escalation is the use of the last argument - violence. Many violent acts are motivated by revenge. Aggression is associated with the desire for some kind of internal compensation (for lost prestige, decreased self-esteem, etc.), compensation for damage. Actions in conflict may be driven by a desire for retribution for damage.

7. The loss of the original subject of disagreement lies in the fact that the confrontation that began through the disputed object develops into a more global clash, during which the original subject of the conflict no longer plays a major role. The conflict becomes independent of the reasons it was caused, and it continues after they have become insignificant.

8. Expanding the boundaries of the conflict.

The conflict is generalized, i.e. transition to deeper contradictions, many different points of contact arise. The conflict is spreading over a large area. There is an expansion of its temporal and spatial boundaries.

9. Increasing the number of participants.

This can occur in the process of escalating the conflict through the involvement of more and more participants. The transformation of interpersonal conflict into intergroup conflict, a quantitative increase and change in the structure of groups participating in the confrontation, changes the nature of the conflict, expanding the range of means used in it.

As the conflict intensifies, regression of the conscious sphere of the psyche occurs. This process is wave-like in nature, based on the unconscious and subconscious levels of mental activity. It does not develop chaotically, but gradually, according to the plan of the ontogenesis of the psyche, but in the opposite direction).

The first two stages reflect the development before the conflict situation. The importance of one’s own desires and arguments grows. There is a fear that the ground for a joint solution to the problem will be lost. Mental tension is growing. Measures taken by one of the parties to change the opponent’s position are understood by the opposite party as a signal for escalation.

The third stage is the actual beginning of escalation. All expectations are focused on actions, replacing futile discussions. However, the expectations of the participants are paradoxical: both sides hope to use force and rigidity to force a change in the opponent’s position, while no one is ready to voluntarily give in. A mature view of reality is sacrificed in favor of a simplified approach that is easier to maintain emotionally.

The real issues of the conflict lose importance while the face of the enemy becomes the center of attention.

Age levels of emotional and social-cognitive functioning of the human psyche:

Beginning of the latent phase;

Latent phase;

Demonstrative phase;

Aggressive phase;

Battle phase.

At the fourth stage of functioning, the psyche regresses to approximately the level corresponding to the age of 6-8 years. A person still has an image of another, but he is no longer ready to reckon with the thoughts, feelings and state of this other. In the emotional sphere, a black and white approach begins to dominate, that is, everything that is “not me” or “not us” is bad, and therefore rejected.

At the fifth stage of escalation, clear signs of progressive regression appear in the form of absoluteization of the negative assessment of the opponent and the positive assessment of oneself. Sacred values, beliefs and the highest moral obligations are at stake. Force and violence take on an impersonal form, the perception of the opposite side freezes in the solid image of the enemy. The enemy is devalued to the status of a thing and deprived of human traits. However, these same people are able to function normally within their group. Therefore, it is difficult for an inexperienced observer to perceive the deeply regressed perceptions of others and take measures to resolve the conflict.

Regression is not inevitable for any person in any difficult situation of social interaction. A lot depends on upbringing, on the assimilation of moral norms and everything that is called the social experience of constructive interaction.

Escalation of interstate conflicts

The escalation of armed conflict has a tactical role in military conflicts and clear rules for the use of armed force.

There are six stages of interstate conflicts.

The first stage of a political conflict is characterized by the formed attitude of the parties regarding a specific contradiction or group of contradictions (this is a fundamental political attitude formed on the basis of certain objective and subjective contradictions and the corresponding economic, ideological, international legal, military-strategic, diplomatic relations regarding these contradictions , expressed in a more or less acute conflict form.)

The second phase of the conflict is the determination of the strategy by the warring parties and the forms of their struggle to resolve existing contradictions, taking into account the potential and possibilities of using various, including violent, means, the domestic and international situation.

The third stage is associated with the involvement of other participants in the struggle through blocs, alliances, and treaties.

The fourth stage is the intensification of the struggle, up to a crisis, which gradually embraces all participants on both sides and develops into a national crisis.

The fifth stage of the conflict is the transition of one of the parties to the practical use of force, initially for demonstrative purposes or on a limited scale.

The sixth stage is an armed conflict that begins with a limited conflict (limitations in goals, territories covered, scale and level of military operations, military means used) and is capable, under certain circumstances, of developing to higher levels of armed struggle (war as a continuation of politics) of all participants.

In international conflicts, the main actors are predominantly states:

Interstate conflicts (both opposing sides are represented by states or their coalitions);

National liberation wars (one side is represented by the state): anti-colonial, wars of peoples, against racism, as well as against governments acting in contradiction with the principles of democracy;

Internal internationalized conflicts (the state acts as an assistant to one of the parties in an internal conflict on the territory of another state).

Interstate conflict often takes the form of war. It is necessary to draw a clear line between war and military conflict:

Military conflicts are smaller in scale. Goals are limited. The reasons are controversial. The cause of the war is deep economic and ideological contradictions between states. Wars are larger;

War is the state of the entire society participating in it, military conflict is the state of a social group;

War partially changes the further development of the state; military conflict can lead to only minor changes.

Escalation of World War II in the Far East

The leadership of a distant Asian country, which had not known military defeat for a millennium, made the most important conclusions for itself: Germany is finally winning in Europe, Russia is disappearing as a factor in world politics, Britain is retreating on all fronts, isolationist and materialistic America will not be able to overnight turn into a military giant - such chance comes once in a millennium. Moreover, dissatisfaction with the sanctions of the United States has spread in the country. And Japan made its choice. 189 Japanese bombers came from the direction of the sun over the main American base in the Hawaiian Islands.

There has been a tectonic shift in the world struggle. Japan, whose military power Stalin so feared, through its actions brought a great overseas power into the camp of opponents of the Berlin-Tokyo-Rome “axis”.

The self-blinding of the samurai, the criminal pride of Japanese militarism, turned events in such a way that Russia, standing on the brink of an abyss, had a great ally. There were 1.7 million people serving in the rapidly deploying US military so far, but that number was growing inexorably. The American Navy had 6 aircraft carriers, 17 battleships, 36 cruisers, 220 destroyers, 114 submarines, and the US Air Force - 13 thousand aircraft. But much of the American military was focused on the Atlantic. Actually in the Pacific Ocean, the Japanese aggressor was opposed by the joint forces of the Americans, British and Dutch - 22 divisions (400 thousand people), about 1.4 thousand aircraft, 4 aircraft carriers with 280 aircraft, 11 battleships, 35 cruisers, 100 destroyers, 86 submarines.

When Hitler learned of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, his delight was genuine. Now the Japanese will completely tie up the United States in the Pacific Ocean and the Americans will have no time for the European theater of operations. Britain will be weakened in the Far East and on the eastern approaches to India. America and Britain will not be able to provide assistance to Russia, isolated by Germany and Japan. The Wehrmacht has absolutely a free hand to do whatever it wants with its enemy.

The United States has entered the world struggle. Roosevelt sent to Congress a military budget of 109 billion dollars - no one, anywhere, had ever spent so much money on military needs in a year. Boeing began to prepare for the release of the B-17 (“Flying Fortress”), and later the B-29 (“Superfortress”); Consolidated produced the B-24 (Liberator) bomber; North American company - P-51 (Mustang). On the evening of the first day of 1942, President F. Roosevelt, Prime Minister W. Churchill, USSR Ambassador M.M. Litvinov and Chinese Ambassador T. Sung signed a document called the “Declaration of the United Nations” in Roosevelt’s office. This is how the anti-Hitler coalition took shape.

And the Japanese continued their phenomenal streak of victories throughout the first months of 1942. They landed on Borneo and continued to spread influence over the Dutch East Indies, taking the city of Manado on Celebes with the help of an airborne assault. A few days later, they entered the Philippine capital of Manila, launched an offensive against American troops on Bataan and struck Rabaul, a strategically located British base in the Bismarck Archipelago. In Malaya, British troops left Kuala Lumpur. All these messages filled the German leadership with delight. They weren't wrong. The Wehrmacht received the necessary time to recover from the Battle of Moscow and decide the fate of the war against the USSR in a carefully prepared summer campaign.

Escalation of the Chechen War 1994-1996

The First Chechen War was a military conflict between the Russian Federation and the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, which took place mainly on the territory of Chechnya between 1994 and 1996. The result of the conflict was the victory of the Chechen armed forces and the withdrawal of Russian troops, mass destruction, casualties and the preservation of Chechnya's independence.

The Chechen Republic seceded from the USSR adhering to the withdrawal procedure and the USSR Constitution. However, despite this, and the fact that these actions were recognized and approved by the governments of the USSR and the RSFSR, the Russian Federation decided not to take into account the norms of international law and its own legislation. Having recovered from the political crisis in the country since the end of 1993, Russian intelligence services are beginning to exercise increasing influence on the top leadership of the state, and are beginning to actively interfere in the affairs of independent neighboring states (former republics of the USSR). In relation to the Chechen Republic, an attempt is being made to annex it to the Russian Federation.

A transport and financial blockade of Chechnya was established, which led to the collapse of the Chechen economy and the rapid impoverishment of the Chechen population. After this, the Russian special services began an operation to incite an internal Chechen armed conflict. Anti-Dudaev opposition forces were trained at Russian military bases and supplied with weapons. However, although the anti-Dudaev forces accepted Russian help, their leaders stated that the armed confrontation in Chechnya was an internal Chechen affair and in the event of Russian military intervention they would forget their contradictions and, together with Dudayev, would defend Chechen independence.

Inciting a fratricidal war, moreover, did not fit into the mentality of the Chechen people and contradicted their national traditions, therefore, despite military assistance from Moscow and the passionate desire of the leaders of the Chechen opposition to seize power in Grozny with Russian bayonets, an armed confrontation between the Chechens never reached the desired level of intensity, and the Russian leadership decided on the need for its own military operation in Chechnya, which turned into a difficult task given the fact that the Soviet army left a significant military arsenal in the Chechen Republic (42 tanks, 90 units of other armored vehicles, 150 guns, 18 Grad installations, several training aircraft, anti-aircraft, missile and portable air defense systems, a huge number of anti-tank weapons, small arms and ammunition). The Chechens also created their own regular army and began producing their own machine gun, the Borzoi.

Escalation of conflicts in the Middle East: Iran and Afghanistan (1977-1980)

1. Iran. The relatively successful actions of American diplomacy in the Far East were canceled out by the losses that the United States suffered in the Middle East. Washington's main partner in this part of the world was Iran. The country was led authoritarianly by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who in the 1960s and 1970s carried out a number of reforms to modernize Iran economically, and also took measures to limit the influence of religious leaders, in particular, by expelling R. Khomeini from the country. Having not received the requested amount of support for his reforms in the West, the Shah turned to the USSR.

However, the “oil shock” of 1973-1974. gave Iran the necessary resources for economic development - Iran was one of the largest suppliers of “black gold” to world markets. Tehran has developed an ambitious plan for the construction of prestigious facilities (nuclear power plants, the world's largest petrochemical plant, metallurgical plants). These programs exceeded the country's capabilities and needs.

A course was taken to modernize the Iranian army. By the mid-1970s, arms purchases in the United States absorbed $5-6 billion a year. In the second half of the 1960s, orders for weapons and military equipment were placed in Great Britain, France and Italy for approximately the same amount. The Shah, with the support of the United States, achieved the transformation of Iran into the leading military power in the region. In 1969, Iran declared territorial claims to neighboring Arab countries and in 1971 occupied three islands in the Strait of Hormuz at the exit from the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean.

Following this, Tehran de facto established control over part of the waters of the Shatg al-Arab River bordering Iraq, which resulted in a severance of diplomatic relations with Iraq. In 1972, conflict broke out between Iran and Iraq. Iran began to support the Kurdish opposition movement in Iraq. However, in 1975, Iran-Iraq relations were normalized, and Tehran stopped providing assistance to the Kurds. The United States and Britain, considering Iran an ally, encouraged the Shah's government in its intention to play a leading role in the Persian Gulf area.

Although the Carter administration did not approve of the repressive policies of the Shah within the country, Washington valued partnership with Tehran, especially after the threat of the use of “oil weapons” by Arab countries arose. Iran cooperated with the United States and Western European countries in stabilizing the energy market. The rapprochement with the United States was accompanied by the penetration of American culture and way of life into Iran. This was in conflict with the national traditions of the Iranians, their conservative way of life, and their mentality based on Islamic values. Westernization was accompanied by arbitrariness of the authorities, corruption, structural breakdown of the economy, and deterioration in the financial situation of the population. This increased dissatisfaction. In 1978, a critical mass of anti-monarchist sentiment accumulated in the country. Spontaneous rallies and demonstrations began to occur everywhere. To suppress the protests they tried to use the police, special services and the army. Rumors of torture and murder of arrested anti-Shah activists finally blew up the situation. On January 9, an uprising began in Tehran. The army was paralyzed and did not come to the aid of the government. On January 12, Tehran radio, seized by the rebels, announced the victory of the Islamic revolution in Iran. On January 16, 1979, the Shah, accompanied by family members, left the country.

On February 1, 1979, Grand Ayatollah R. Khomeini returned to Tehran from exile in France. Now they began to call him “imam”. He instructed his comrade Mohammed Bazargan to form an interim government. On April 1, 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) was officially proclaimed.

On November 4, 1979, Iranian students stormed the US Embassy in Tehran and took the American diplomats there as hostages. The participants of the action demanded that "Washington extradite the Shah, who was in the United States, to Iran. Their demands were supported by the Iranian authorities. In response, President J. Carter announced a severance of diplomatic relations with Iran on April 7, 1980. Sanctions were imposed against Tehran. J. Carter imposed a ban on the import of Iranian oil and announced the freezing of Iranian assets (about $12 billion) in American banks. In May 1980, the countries of the European Community joined sanctions against Iran.

Events in Tehran gave rise to a second “oil shock” associated with fears of a possible halt in Iranian oil exports. Oil prices soared from $12-13 per barrel in 1974 to $36 and even $45 on the free market in 1980. With the second “oil shock,” a new economic recession began in the world, which lasted until 1981, and in some countries - until 1982

The international situation has become even more tense following the escalation of the conflict in Afghanistan. Throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, Afghanistan was rocked by political crises. The situation in the country remained very tense when a coup d'etat took place on July 17, 1973. King Zahir Shah, who was undergoing treatment in Italy, was declared deposed, and the king's brother Mohammed Daoud came to power in Kabul. The monarchy was abolished and the country declared the Republic of Afghanistan. The new regime was soon recognized by the international community. Moscow greeted the coup approvingly, since M. Daoud had long been known in the USSR, having served as Prime Minister of Afghanistan for many years.

In relations with the great powers, the new government continued the policy of balancing, without giving preference to any of them. Moscow has been increasing its economic and military assistance to Afghanistan, expanding its influence in the Afghan army and providing tacit support to the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan. M. Daoud's visit to the Soviet Union in 1974 demonstrated the stability of Kabul's ties with Moscow; loan payments were deferred and promises of new ones were made. Despite Daoud’s gradual shift away from focusing on the USSR, the USSR was three times greater than the United States in terms of the volume of assistance provided to Afghanistan. At the same time, Moscow supported the People's Democratic Army of Afghanistan (PDPA, which positioned itself as a local communist party), promoting the unity of its factions and pushing them to take decisive action against M. Daoud.

On April 27, 1978, in Afghanistan, army officers - members and supporters of the PDPA - carried out a new coup d'etat. M. Daoud and some of the ministers were killed. Power in the country passed to the PDPA, which declared the events of April 27 a “national democratic revolution.” Afghanistan was renamed the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA). The highest authority was the Revolutionary Council, headed by the General Secretary of the PDPA Central Committee, Nur Mohammed Taraki.

The USSR, and after it a number of other countries (about 50 in total), recognized the new regime. Relations with the Soviet Union, based on the principles of “brotherhood and revolutionary solidarity,” were declared a priority in the foreign policy of the DRA. In the first months after the April Revolution, a series of agreements and contracts were concluded between the USSR and the DRA in all areas of socio-economic, cultural and military-political cooperation, and numerous advisers from the USSR arrived in the country. The semi-ally nature of Soviet-Afghan relations was secured by the Treaty of Friendship, Good Neighborhood and Cooperation for a period of 20 years, signed by N. M. Taraki and L. I. Brezhnev on December 5, 1978 in Moscow. The agreement provided for cooperation between the parties in the military field, but did not specifically stipulate the possibility of stationing the armed forces of one side on the territory of the other.

However, a split soon occurred within the PDPA itself, as a result of which Hafizullah Amin came to power. Social and economic reforms carried out in the country by force and ill-considered, as well as repression, the number of victims of which, according to various estimates, may exceed a million people, led to a crisis. The government in Kabul began to lose influence in the provinces, which came under the control of the leaders of local clans. Provincial authorities formed their own armed units capable of resisting the government army. By the end of 1979, the anti-government opposition, acting under traditionalist Islamic slogans, controlled 18 of the 26 provinces of Afghanistan. There was a threat of the fall of the Kabul government. Amin's positions fluctuated, especially since the USSR ceased to consider him as the most convenient figure for carrying out socialist transformations in the country.

Capture of Kabul

The USSR's intervention in Afghan affairs was condemned. He was especially harshly criticized by the USA, China and Western European countries. The leaders of the leading Western European communist parties spoke out in condemnation of Moscow.

The most serious consequence of the Afghan events was the deterioration of the international situation as a whole. The United States began to suspect that the Soviet Union was preparing to break into the Persian Gulf region in order to establish control over its oil resources. Six days after the start of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, on January 3, 1980, President Carter sent an appeal to the Senate asking that the SALT II treaty signed in Vienna be withdrawn from ratification, which as a result was never ratified. At the same time, the American administration officially stated that it would remain within the limits agreed upon in Vienna if the Soviet Union followed its example. The severity of the conflict was slightly smoothed out, but the detente came to an end. Tensions began to rise.

On January 23, 1980, J. Carter delivered his annual State of the Union address, in which he announced a new foreign policy doctrine. The Persian Gulf region was declared a zone of US interests, for the protection of which the United States is ready to use armed force. In accordance with the “Carter Doctrine,” attempts by any power to establish control over the Persian Gulf region were declared in advance by the American leadership as an encroachment on important US interests. Washington has clearly stated its intention to “resist such attempts by any means, including the use of military force.” The ideologist of this doctrine was Z. Brzezinski, who managed to convince the president that the Soviet Union was forming an “anti-American axis” in Asia consisting of the USSR, India and Afghanistan. In response, it was proposed to create a “counter-axis” (USA-Pakistan-China-Saudi Arabia). Contradictions between Z. Brzezinski and Secretary of State S. Vance, who still considered the US priority to maintain constructive relations with the USSR, led to the resignation of S. Vance on April 2, 1980.

Reacting to the Afghan events, Washington made changes in its approach to military-political issues of world politics. Secret Presidential Directive No. 59, dated July 25, 1980, outlined the main provisions of the US “new nuclear strategy.” Their meaning was to return to the idea of the possibility of winning a nuclear war. The directive emphasized the old idea of a counterforce strike, which in the new interpretation was supposed to become a key element of a “flexible response.” The American side began to proceed from the need to demonstrate to the Soviet Union the ability of the United States to withstand a prolonged nuclear conflict and win it.

The USSR and the USA had a distorted understanding of the intentions of the other side. The American administration believed that the invasion of Afghanistan meant Moscow's choice in favor of global confrontation. The Soviet leadership was confident that the Afghan events, which, from their point of view, were of purely secondary, regional significance, served for Washington only as a pretext for resuming the global arms race, which it had always secretly strived for.

There was no uniformity of assessments among NATO countries. Western European countries did not consider Moscow's intervention in Afghanistan an event of global significance. Détente was more important to them than to the United States. Realizing this, J. Carter constantly warned European allies against the “erroneous belief in détente” and attempts to maintain constructive relations with Moscow. The states of Western Europe did not want to join American sanctions against the USSR. In 1980, when the United States boycotted the Olympic Games in Moscow, only Germany and Norway followed their example from European countries. But in the sphere of military-strategic relations, Western Europe continued to follow the US line.

Military conflict in Vietnam

As the aggression escalated, American regular units became increasingly drawn into hostilities. Any disguise and talk that the Americans were allegedly helping the Saigon authorities only with “advice” and “advisers” were discarded. Gradually, US troops began to play a major role in the fight against the national liberation movement in Indochina. If at the beginning of June 1965 the American expeditionary force in South Vietnam numbered 70 thousand people, then in 1968 it was already 550 thousand people.

But neither the aggressor's army of more than half a million, nor the latest technology used on an unprecedentedly wide scale, nor the use of chemical warfare over large areas, nor brutal bombings broke the resistance of the South Vietnamese patriots. By the end of 1968, according to official American data, more than 30 thousand were killed in South Vietnam and about 200 thousand American soldiers and officers were wounded.

Armed conflict in Vietnam

Such tactics of American imperialism arose from the US "new policy" in Asia, outlined by President Nixon in July 1969. He promised the American public that Washington would not take on new “commitments” in Asia, that American soldiers would not be used to suppress “internal rebellions,” and that “the Asians will decide their own affairs.” In relation to the Vietnam War, the “new policy” meant an increase in the number, reorganization and modernization of the military-political machine of the Saigon regime, which took on the main burden of the war with the South Vietnamese patriots. The United States provided air and artillery cover to Saigon troops, reducing the actions of American ground troops and thereby reducing its losses.

Sources and links

interpretive.ru – National Historical Encyclopedia

ru.wikipedia.org – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

uchebnik-online.com – Online textbooks

sbiblio.com - Library of educational and scientific literature

cosmomfk.ru - Gorkokhonky project

rosbo.ru – Business training in Russia

psyznaiyka.net – basics of psychology, general psychology, conflictology

usagressor.ru - American aggression

history-of-wars.ru - Military history of Russia

madrace.ru - Crazy race. Course: World War II

Escalation - what is it? The word is used quite often in scientific and journalistic literature, but few people know its meaning. Conflict escalation is usually called the period during which a dispute passes through the main stages of its development and approaches completion. The term comes from the Latin language and translated means “stairs”. Escalation shows a conflict progressing over time, characterized by a gradual escalation of confrontation between the conflicting parties, when each subsequent attack, each subsequent attack or pressure on the opponent becomes more intense than the previous one. The escalation of a dispute is the path from an incident to a weakening of the struggle and confrontation.

Signs and types of conflict escalation

Various ones help highlight such a significant part of the conflict as escalation. It is really difficult to understand what it is without special signs. When characterizing an ongoing incident, you need to refer to the list of those properties that relate specifically to the escalation period and not to another.

Cognitive sphere

Behavioral and activity reactions narrow, and there comes a moment of transition to less complex forms of reflecting reality.

Image of the enemy

It is he who blocks and weakens adequate perception. Being a holistically formed analogue of the opponent, he combines fictitious, fictitious properties, as he begins to form during the conflict. is a kind of result of empirical perception, predetermined by negative characteristics and assessments. As long as there is no confrontation and neither side poses a threat to the other, the image of the opponent is neutral: he is stable, fairly objective and indirect. At its core, it resembles weakly developed photographs, the images in which are pale, unclear, and blurry. But under the influence of escalation, illusory moments become more and more apparent, the emergence of which is provoked by the opponents’ negative emotional and personal assessment of each other. In these cases, there are some “symptomatic” features that are inherent in many conflicting people. They see their enemy as a person who should not be trusted. The blame is shifted onto her, only wrong decisions and actions are expected from her - a harmful personality, which at the same time is the result of antagonistic deindividuation, when the enemy ceases to be an individual, but becomes a generalized collective, so to speak, allegorical image, which has absorbed a huge amount of evil, negativity, cruelty, vulgarity and other vices.

Emotional stress

It is growing with terrifying intensity, the opposite side is losing control, and the subjects of the conflict temporarily lose the opportunity to realize their interests or satisfy their needs.

Human interests

Relationships are always built in a certain hierarchy, even if they are polar and contradictory, therefore the intensity of actions leads to a more serious impact on the interests of the opposing side. Here it is appropriate to define that this is an escalation of the conflict, that is, a unique environment in which contradictions deepen. In an escalation process, the interests of opposing sides become “multipolar.” In the previous situation of confrontation, their coexistence was possible, but now their reconciliation is impossible without causing harm to one of the disputants.

Violence

Serves as an excellent tool during the escalation of a conflict, being its identification sign. The desire for compensation and compensation by the opposing side for the harm caused provokes the individual to aggression, cruelty, and intolerance. An escalation of violence, that is, an increase in ruthless, belligerent actions, often accompanies the course of one or another misunderstanding.

Original subject of dispute

It fades into the background, no longer plays a special role, the main attention is not focused on it, the conflict can be characterized as independent of the reasons and reasons, its further course and development are possible even after the loss of the primary subject of disagreement. The conflict situation in its escalation becomes generalized, but at the same time deeper. Additional points of contact between the parties arise, and the confrontation unfolds over a larger territory. Conflictologists at this stage record the expansion of spatial and temporal frameworks. This indicates that we are facing a progressive escalation that is becoming serious. What it is, and how it will affect the subjects participating in the conflict or observing it, can be found out only after the end of the confrontation and its thorough analysis.

Growth in the number of subjects

As the confrontation intensifies, the participants “multiply” as well. An inexplicable and uncontrollable influx of new subjects of conflict begins, which takes on a global scale, developing into group, international, etc. The internal structure of groups, their composition, and their characteristics change. The range of funds is becoming wider, and may go in a completely different direction.

At this stage, we can turn to the information that psychiatrists provide us. They concluded that during any conflict the conscious sphere significantly regresses. Moreover, this does not happen out of chaotic obsession, but gradually, with the preservation of specific patterns.

Step-by-step escalation

It is necessary to understand what the mechanisms of conflict escalation are. The first two stages can be combined under one general name - the pre-conflict situation and its development. They are accompanied by an increase in the importance of one’s own interests and ideas about the world, and the fear of the inability to get out of the situation exclusively peacefully, through mutual assistance and concessions. Mental tension increases many times over.

At the third stage, escalation begins directly, most of the discussions are curtailed, the parties to the conflict move on to decisive actions, in which there is some paradox. Through harshness, rudeness and violence, the opposing sides try to influence each other, forcing the opponent to change his position. No one is going to give in. Wisdom and rationality disappear as if by magic, and the main object of attention becomes the image of the enemy.

An amazing fact, but at the fourth stage of confrontation, the human psyche regresses to such an extent that it becomes comparable to the reflexes and behavioral properties of a six-year-old child. The individual refuses to perceive someone else’s position, to listen to it, and is guided in his actions only by the “EGO”. The world becomes divided into “black” and “white”, into good and evil, no deviations or complications are allowed. The essence of the conflict is clear and primitive.

At the fifth stage, moral beliefs and the most important values are broken. All sides and individual elements characterizing the opponent are collected into a single image of an enemy devoid of human traits. Within the group, these people can continue to communicate and interact, so an outside observer is unlikely to be able to influence the outcome of the conflict at this stage.

In conditions of social interaction, the psyche of many people is subject to pressure, and regression occurs. In many ways, a person’s psychological stability depends on his upbringing, on the type of moral standards he has learned, and on his personal social experience.

Symmetrical schismogenesis, or Escalation in a scientific way

A theory developed by scientist G. Bateson, called the theory of symmetrical schismogenesis, will help describe the escalation of conflict from the outside. The term “schismogenesis” refers to changes that occur in an individual’s behavior as a result of his socialization and gaining new experience at the level of interpersonal and intrapersonal encounters. For schismogenesis, there are two options for external manifestation:

The first represents a change in behavior in which certain types of actions of individuals coming into contact complement each other. Let's say, when one of the opponents is persistent, and the second is conformist and compliant. That is, a kind of unique mosaic is formed from the behavior options of different subjects of the conflict.
The second option exists only if there are identical behavioral models, say, both attack, but with different degrees of intensity.

Obviously, the escalation of the conflict refers specifically to the second variation of schismogenesis. But various forms of escalations can also be classified. For example, it may not be interrupted and be marked by increasing tension, or it may become wave-like, when sharp angles and mutual pressure of opponents on each other move either along an ascending or downward trajectory.

The term "escalation" is used in various fields, not only in psychology and sociology. For example, there is tariff escalation - the meaning of this term can be read in any economic encyclopedia. It can be steep when the movement from calm to hostility occurs incredibly quickly and non-stop, and sometimes it can be sluggish, slowly flowing, or even maintaining the same level for a long time. The last characteristic is most often inherent in a protracted or, as they say, chronic conflict.

Models of conflict escalation. Positive outcome

Positive escalation of a conflict is the possibility of eliminating it when there is a common desire for a peaceful resolution. In this case, both parties must analyze and choose those rules of behavior that do not violate the principles and beliefs of either opponent. In addition, the most preferable ones should be selected from the entire range of variable solutions and outcomes, and they should be developed for several possible outcomes of the situation at once. Among other things, the disputants need to clearly identify and specify their desires and interests, explain them to the opposite side, who must subsequently also be listened to. From the entire list of demands, select those that are responsive and fair, and then begin attempts to implement them using means and methods that must also be accepted and approved by all opponents.

Of course, the conflict cannot be ignored under any circumstances. This is similar to negligence when people leave an iron or a burning match on in an apartment - there is a risk of fire. The analogy between a fire and a conflict is not accidental: both are much easier to prevent than to extinguish after ignition. The time component is of great importance, because both a fire and a quarrel are terrible because they spread with greater force. In these ways, the basic principle of escalation is similar to a disease or epidemic.

The escalation of a conflict often becomes confusing, because the contradiction is replenished with new details, features, and intrigues. Emotions rush with increasing speed and overwhelm all participants in the confrontation.

All this leads us to the conclusion that an experienced leader of any group, having learned that serious or minor dissonance is flaring up or is already in full force among its members, will immediately take measures to eliminate it. Inaction and indifference in this situation will most likely be condemned by the team and will be accepted as meanness, cowardice, and cowardice.

Models of conflict escalation. Dead point

It should be noted that sometimes escalation slows down or stops altogether. This phenomenon also has predetermining reasons:

One opposing side is ready to make a voluntary concession due to the fact that the conflict for some reason becomes unacceptable to it.
One of the opponents persistently tries to avoid the conflict, to “fall out” of it, as the conflict situation becomes uncomfortable or harmful.
The conflict is approaching a dead point, the escalation of violence is becoming fruitless and unprofitable.

A dead point is a state of affairs when the confrontation reaches a dead end and stops after one or more unsuccessful clashes. The change in the pace of escalation or its completion is due to certain factors.

Factors causing a “dead spot”

Objectively speaking, this stage is not characterized by profound changes, but one of the parties begins to have a completely different attitude towards the conflict and ways to resolve it. When both sides agree that it is impossible for either of them to prevail, they will have to concede, give up victory, or come to an agreement. But the essence of this stage lies in the realization that the enemy is not just an enemy who personifies all the vices and sorrows of the world. and a worthy opponent, with his own shortcomings and advantages, with whom one can and should find common interests and points of contact. This understanding becomes the initial step towards resolving the conflict.

conclusions

Thus, when figuring out what escalation means in social, cultural and economic terms, you need to understand that it develops according to different schemes and models, and its outcome can be chosen by the participants in the conflict, because it depends on them how competently they can overcome the emerging problems. contradictions, and how sad the consequences will be.

Conflict escalation is an increase in confrontation between the parties. Models, types, phases and tactics of behavior may vary.

It is impossible to avoid conflict situations. The problem of their development has been repeatedly raised by professional psychologists and specialists in this field. They often use the concept of “escalation”. What it is, its type and models, how it develops and what it leads to - you can find out about this by carefully studying the article.

What it is

Conflict escalation is the development of a conflict situation that progresses over time. The concept is used to define the growing confrontation between the parties, the result of which may be their negative impact on each other.

The escalation of a conflict situation is understood as its part, starting from the moment of a conflict of interests and ending with the weakening of the struggle, its end.

Models and types of conflict escalation

Spiral escalation is characterized by the following features:

the cognitive sphere in behavior or work is significantly reduced, in the process there is a transition to a primitive form of display;
adequate perception is repressed due to the implantation of an “enemy” image;
signs include a shift from argumentation to attack;
use of violence;
loss of the original subject of the conflict. It is replaced by the desire to win in a conflict situation, to “put down” the enemy.

The image of the enemy represents the idea of the opposing side. It distorts features about him and begins to take shape during the latent stage of a conflict situation. The image is provided exclusively with negative ratings.

If there is no threat on his part, then the image may be indirect. Some experts compare it to a fuzzy and blurry photograph with a faded image.

Conflict escalation models:

"Attack - Defense"- one of the parties begins to make demands, the second refuses them and advocates preserving its interests as a principle. Failure of one of the parties to comply with the put forward demands sets the stage for repeated requests, more stringent in nature. Tightening begins to be accompanied by irrational behavior, which contributes to the manifestation of anger, despair and anger.
"Attack - attack"- a typical conflict situation, manifested in the alternate intensification of the aggressive behavior of the parties. Example: in response to a certain requirement, a more stringent request is put forward. Both sides become “captured” by negative emotions that they cannot get rid of. At the same time, even harmless proposals from the other side are rejected as unacceptable and unacceptable. Both participants are driven by the desire to “punish” the enemy for his thoughts and actions.

Stages and phases of development

The escalation of the conflict goes through the following phases of development:

"Gain"- the interests of the parties begin to collide more and more often and noticeably stronger, tension between opponents becomes noticeable, which can be relieved by conversation. The stage is characterized by the absence of parties or separate camps, the parties are ready to cooperate, and this desire exceeds the desire for competition.
"Controversy". Essential characteristics: contradictions begin to be expressed in debates, different points of view lead to a clash of views. Both sides believe they are using rational evidence, but verbal violence begins to occur. Groups are formed around the parties, the composition of which often changes.
Third stage conflict occurs if during the period of controversy the problem has not been resolved. Its signs: a transition to proving one’s rightness in practice, through action, fear of making mistakes, and the predominance of pessimistic expectations.
"Image"- stereotypes are included in the conflict, false rumors are spread, the image of an enemy is created, supporters are recruited, and the parties are irritated.
"Loss of Face". Features of the stage: integrity in terms of moral thinking and experience is lost; not only the image of the enemy, but also the image of the “I” becomes distorted and does not correspond to reality. Other features of the fifth stage: a feeling of disgust develops towards the rejected person; the rejected ones, in turn, lose sensitivity, try to isolate themselves, “get lost.”
"Threat Strategy"- characterized by the fact that supporters take various actions aimed at showing decisiveness, creating forced actions, initiative is lost, the time required to make a decision is significantly reduced, a state of panic gradually increases, the parties are guided by other people’s advice, and act less and less on their own. At this stage, the conflict becomes a direct clash, it already carries a threat.
"Limited Strikes"— in psychology it is believed that at this stage, when making decisions, the moral qualities of a person are not perceived; the harm caused is perceived as some kind of “gain” for one’s side.
"Devastation"— name of the eighth phase. It has the following features: the desire to destroy the enemy’s system, the total destruction of the other side in the physical, material, social, and spiritual planes.
"Together into the Abyss"— the parties do not see a way back, a total confrontation begins, the main thing for the party is the destruction of the enemy. At this stage, a characteristic sign is observed - the readiness to harm the enemy at the cost of one’s own fall.

Behavior tactics

Escalation of the conflict involves the parties using the following behavioral tactics:

Capture and subsequent retention of the object of the conflict situation. This tactic is used when the subject of the conflict is material.
Violence. In such behavior, the following techniques are used: bodily injury, damage to property values, infliction of pain.
Psychological abuse: the desire to hurt the feelings of the other party (conceit, pride).
Coalition. This tactic involves strengthening one’s own rank in a situation by adding more participants to one’s group: leaders, friends, etc.
Pressure. Behavior is based on demands and orders, accompanied by threats. This category includes blackmail and presentation of ultimatums.
Friendliness. This behavior requires correct treatment, readiness to resolve the current situation, and an apology.
Deal. The tactics are based on mutual apologies and promises. The mechanisms of such behavior make it possible to resolve a conflict situation.

The ladder (escalation) of conflict can bring both adverse and positive consequences. Each of them will have an impact on the further development of opponents and their “camps”.