Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Defence and security / / Articles
Information weapons of the superpowers: cyber warfare and "controlled crises"
Material posted: Publication date: 03-05-2012

As a result of development of information and telecommunication technologies has changed not only the means of armed struggle, but also the strategy and tactics of modern wars, there was the concept of taking into account the informational vulnerability of the parties. In a respectable scientific publications in recent times against the information weapon even uses the term "weapons of mass destruction". The role of a leader in the use of this "weapon" belongs unquestionably and unreservedly the US, which formulated the basic strategies of information warfare in 1992.

The accelerating dynamics of development of information and telecommunication technologies, offering opportunities to improve the efficiency of the entire information infrastructure of post-industrial society, and create many problems in various fields of world politics, especially in international and national security. As a result of wide application of new information technologies have evolved as a means of armed struggle and the strategy and tactics of modern wars, there was the concept of taking into account the informational vulnerability of the parties. Increases the dependence of the processes taking place in various areas of military activities, the quality of functioning of information-communication networks and circulating information.

Due to the rapid spread of information and telecommunication technologies there is a concentration of power (political, economic, military) in several world centers of power, which under certain conditions can be potential opponents of the United States. Currently leadership role in the use of information tools and absolutely no doubt belongs to the USA. Maintaining leadership in the field of development of information and telecommunication technologies is considered the American political and military leadership as an essential component of the global information superiority. In its own way, it is natural that in this area are made or planned significant transformation.

1. Initial priorities

Doctrinal study of the conduct of information warfare in the USA began immediately after the Gulf war (1991), in which American armed forces have first used the latest information technologies. The Directive of the Ministry of defence (MOD) TS 3600.1, enacted December 21, 1992, formulated the basic provisions of the strategy of information warfare. In this document it was defined as a separate type of operational support (comprehensive information impact on the system of state and military control of the enemy) and consisted of five main elements: psychological operations, counter enemy intelligence and security forces actions, the introduction of the enemy in confusion, electronic warfare, destruction of command posts of the enemy and its communication systems [1].

Further development of these issues was issued in the form of the official publication of the so-called doctrines. In February 1996, the joint chiefs of staff (CSC) promulgated the "Doctrine of combat management systems" [2]. In December 1998 entered into force "joint doctrine for information operations", according to which information operation is a complex of actions for manipulation of information to achieve and maintain comprehensive superiority over the enemy through the impact on information processes in control systems [3]. The document stressed that the effectiveness of deterrence, power projection, and other strategic concepts to a large extent depends on the ability to influence the perceptions and decisions of other governments. For example, during crises, information operations are designed to help to keep the opponent from holding actions that harm the U.S. and its allies.

The document identified goals, objectives and basic principles of information warfare, the duties of the governing bodies and officials in their organization and planning in peacetime and in a crisis situation. In addition, include requirements for intelligence support of information operations and the training of personnel, providing their planning and execution. It was stated in the texts, effective information confrontation should allow the enemy to impose a false vision of the operational situation, to force him to conduct of hostilities in unfavorable conditions. This is achieved mainly by the implementation of complex of measures allowing, on the one hand, to disrupt the decision making process of the enemy, and to process information in their management system more efficient and faster than it can make the enemy.

Came to power in the early twenty-first century Republicans have significantly increased attention to the problem of conflict in the information space. Their efforts were aimed, primarily, at developing the information strategy of deterrence and the creation of the Ministry of defense a special unit that would be responsible for conducting information warfare [4].

In February 2003, President George. Bush Jr. approved the "National security strategy of cyberspace", which, in fact, was the first doctrinal initiative, which determined the need for coordination and concentration of efforts of all Federal agencies in protecting the national information space [5]. In the document, among other tasks, it was noted the need to enhance coordination of the Ministry of defense and national intelligence community in responding to cyber threats. Emphasized that the American government reserves the right to respond to cyber attacks with the use of all means and capabilities of the military component of national information infrastructure.

In the development of this doctrinal document in October 2003, has been published in "Road map information operations" [6]. Here it was noted that the national information infrastructure is the operational center of gravity and the Ministry of defence coordinates the efforts of Federal agencies in fighting cyber attacks the enemy at the automated centers of the state and military management. With the realization of this document the task began the gradual development and introduction of the main provisions of the strategy of information warfare in the military doctrine and the formation of patterns for management operations in information space.

In turn, the joint chiefs of staff approved in February 2006 the document "Information operations" outlining the views of American military leaders on their preparation and performance, revised goals, objectives and basic principles of information warfare, as well as the responsibilities of officers on the preparation and conduct of such operations in peace and war [7]. As followed from the document, information operations represent a complex of measures for impact on human and material resources of the enemy to hinder or to make impossible decision, while simultaneously protecting their ICT networks and computer systems. These operations included five main components: electronic warfare (electronic warfare), psychological operations (psychological operations), operations information and communication networks (computer network operations), military disinformation (military deception), operations security (operations security). Identified and supporting elements of information operations needed to achieve success in peace and war, including: information stability (information assurance), physical impact (physical attack), counterintelligence (counterintelligence), physical security (physical security), and imagery intelligence (combat camera), communications (public affairs), civil-military operations (civil-military operations), the support structures of the defense Ministry public diplomacy (defense support to public diplomacy).

The Department of defense Directive 3600.1 D, enacted on August 14, 2006, for the first time clearly defined the main tasks and functions of information operations in General, meaning integrated application of electronic warfare systems, operations information and communication networks, psychological operations, military deception and operational security [8]. The paper noted that information operations are conducted "for the purpose of information influence, misrepresentation, breach of computer systems, information distortion, disorganization databases and of depriving the enemy of their use, retrieve information from computer systems and databases of the enemy while protecting its information and information infrastructure". The document introduced the principle of division of information operations into three categories: attack on computer networks (computer network attack), protection of computer networks (computer network defense), providing access to computer networks of the enemy and using them to their advantage (computer network exploitation). Similar directives have been issued all types of the armed forces [9].

Came to power in early 2009, the administration Democrats continued to actively develop a strategy of information warfare. Immediately after taking office, President Barack Obama ordered an exhaustive analysis of activities of Federal agencies for establishing comprehensive effective protection of the national information and communication networks, as well as the national strategy to fight in the information space. As followed from the official statements of President Barack Obama, "cyber espionage and crime in information and communication networks have become a growing trend. Therefore, cyber security is a top priority of national security in the twenty-first century ..." [10].

This speech coincided with the release of the "policy Review in cyberspace," presented to the President by a special Commission that conducted an analysis of the state of Affairs in the field of protection of the information space. The review contained recommendations to improve the safety of the national information infrastructure [11]. In particular, it was argued that Federal agencies are too bureaucratic and fragmented in their action in the field of cyber security. It was emphasized that the urgent need to develop appropriate legal norms in the field of cyber security for national jurisdiction, sovereign responsibility of States and the order of the force response to cyber threats.

The report also showed that U.S. approaches to cyber security do not match the pace of escalating threat. It was noted that national security is almost entirely dependent on functioning information and communication networks that provide the vital activity of the whole national infrastructure, primarily Federal agencies responsible for defence and security. In accordance with the recommendations of American experts, it was proposed to create the post of cyber security coordinator, who would report directly to the President.

These proposals virtually coincided with the recommendations of experts of the Washington-based Center for strategic and international studies, made in December 2008 in the report "Securing cyberspace for the 44th President of the United States" [12].

In March 2010 it became known about the main directions of implementation of the program of increase of efficiency of counteraction to cyber-attacks on U.S. information and communications network and database. The work is carried out in accordance with the "Initiative comprehensive national cyber security" (The Comprehensive National Cyber Security Initiative) under the leadership of the Council of national security of the United States [13]. Its implementation involves all Federal agencies of the USA, as well as the structure of the state governments responsible for the security of the information space.

It should be noted that it includes the documents developed during the previous Republican administration. It is published in the January 2008 Presidential Directive on safeguarding national security, No. 54 (National Security Presidential Directive 54) and the Presidential Directive on homeland security No. 23 (Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23).

Initiative provides the further improvement of the monitoring of Federal information and communication networks, as well as the introduction of the program "Reliable Internet connection", aimed at reducing the number of connection points of computer systems of Federal departments and agencies in the external information and communication networks in order to detect cases of intrusion. The projected expenditure for the implementation of this "Initiative" can range from 40 to 100 billion us dollars. All it provides for 12 major areas of work associated with the full protection of the national information space and record all attempts at unauthorized entry.

Specialists are intended primarily to clearly define the permissible limits in the fight against cyber threats, as well as to create conditions for full awareness of the military-political leadership about the vulnerability of computer systems providing activity of the national information infrastructure, and for closing the technological gaps in the computer systems and take timely and necessary measures to counter possible cyber attacks.

Another priority identified in "the Initiative," protecting databases from the entire spectrum of likely cyber threats. It is proposed to solve it by enhancing technical and operational capacity of Federal agencies responsible for national security. In addition, it is planned to provide more careful monitoring of supply chain the latest information technology to the Federal agencies responsible for national defense and security. It is expected that it will exclude the possibility of acquisition of technical equipment, capable to harm national security.

Another major direction is implemented by "Initiative" is a set of measures on quality improvement of training of specialists in the field of information security. It is also proposed to improve the efficiency of the coordination of federally funded R & d in this field and to introduce effective mechanisms of redirecting them timely to prevent the unnecessary costs of duplicate research.

It is planned to develop strategic approaches for an effective response to all types of cyber threats. For this purpose it is proposed to carry out a complex of measures, starting with the modernization of state structures responsible for information security, and to defining the place and role of the Federal government in this process, in order to ensure continuous control over the functioning of the national information and communication networks and the management of a single complex. This, according to competent professionals is only the first step towards ensuring robust cyber security. All the operational rapid response to cyber threats should be combined into a single structure that will allow you to control the situation in computer systems in real time and significantly improve the quality of analysis undertaken by enemy cyber attacks. It is proposed to carry out activities aimed at creating structures cybercontraband, outfitting them with the latest technological tools with the introduction of the latest technologies designed to increase information security secure communication channels and data transmission.

In may 2011, President Obama approved the "International strategy for cyberspace", which States the comprehensive approach military-political leadership to the policy in global information space [14]. The document confirms that the information and national information infrastructure in General is a strategic resource. It is emphasized that in the twenty-first century the state has a very limited capacity of management and control in cyberspace. Meanwhile, in the emerging polycentric system of international relations increasingly active role is played by various non-state actors (including hostile towards the US).

Special emphasis American experts on international cooperation in the field of information security. The main role in ensuring information security throughout the national infrastructure is given to the Ministry of defense.

Among the key policy priorities of development of the national information infrastructure, along with the development of the national economy, protection of information and communication networks, stricter legislation in the information sphere, the development of international cooperation, the establishment of effective structures for Internet governance and ensuring fundamental freedoms on the Internet, an important place is given to the military component. For the first time in official documents, special attention is paid to the containment of potential information adversaries. It is assumed that the structures of collective security (such as NATO) will effectively apply the strategy of information deterrence against States and non - state opponents. An important place in the document also assigned the challenge of crafting the necessary rules of international law in the field of information security.

In the development of this doctrinal document of the MOE has published the "Strategy of the Ministry of defence, operations in cyberspace" in July 2011 introduced, speaking in his national defense University, Deputy Secretary of defense William Lynn [15]. However, he said: "the United States reserves the right, in accordance with the laws of war to respond to cyber attacks proportionate and fair way in that time and in that place that we choose".

In the "Strategy" States that the Pentagon will treat cyberspace as a sphere of operational activities (in addition to the four main). Just the document also identified five strategic initiatives that will allow the defense Ministry to protect the national infrastructure: 1. The recognition of cyberspace as a priority area of operations; 2. The use of "active protection" information and communication networks and computer systems; 3. Effective interaction of the Ministry of defense with other Federal agencies and private companies in the field of information security; 4. Establishment of active cooperation with allies and partners in the area of collective defense against cyber threats; 5. The increase in financial and material resources invested in the development of the scientific and technical basis of cyber security and in training relevant qualified specialists.

In General, doctrinal documents outlining elements of a strategy of information warfare, Washington declares the necessity to possess a reliable and modern national defence and security capacity to wage information warfare. It highlights the increasing role of information weapons, as an essential element in the plans of warfare of a new generation, it is noted that the increasing dependence of the efficiency of the fighting on the latest digital technology inevitably leads to increased vulnerability of the national information infrastructure, making its components a priority military targets for the enemy. The essential conclusion of all documents is the need for reliable and comprehensive protection of the information space and the entire information infrastructure in General.


2. The scope of

Information American weapons experts understand the totality of specially organized and structured information traffic, which, along with the newest information and telecommunication technologies, allows you to purposefully modify (destroy, distort, block, copy) information to overcome security systems, to limit the tolerance of legitimate users, to carry out disinformation, to disrupt the functioning of the media, to disrupt the operation of technical equipment, computer systems and communication networks [16].

In other words, the information refers to the weapons Arsenal of means of unauthorized access to information and crippling the electronic control systems of the enemy. This assumes that the means of information-psychological influence can not only harm health, but also lead to blockage at the subconscious level of free will of man, the loss of ability of political, cultural and other identities, the manipulation of public consciousness and even the collapse of a United informational and spiritual space.

The emergence of information weapons, in the official interpretation, is fundamentally changing the mechanism of escalation of armed conflict, as even the selective use of information weapons on military and civilian information infrastructure of the enemy to terminate the conflict at its early stage, even before the beginning of active hostilities. The possession of information weapons provides political and military-strategic advantage over States that do not.

As nuclear and information weapons can serve both to political pressure and containment. Some influential experts, the effect of target information on the impact of the enemy is comparable to the use of WMD, and the threat of being subjected to such exposure may be an important deterrent to a potential aggressor. The effectiveness of such threats depends on the level of technological development and scale of use of computer technology in the information systems of the state. For example, a computer system can be either destroyed physically, or it can be stolen critical information, or its software may be changed due to virus intrusion or hacker attacks.

One of the leading U.S. experts in the field of information warfare, Professor at the national defense University Libicki Martin believes that information in the future will become the main deterrent of armed conflict [17]. In his opinion, a single intelligence-information infrastructure consisting of a network of space, air, land and sea sensors for various purposes, allows you to control any military activity on the planet and, therefore, to apply preventive measures. In such circumstances, according to M. Libicki, any action by a potential enemy will be completely transparent to the opposite side and the international community as a whole. Accordingly, the enemy may be deprived of even the possibility to conduct military preparations, as globalization of the world information and communication networks will allow you to paralyze and block of its management system, thereby causing significant damage to military capabilities. In their research Libicki identified seven main forms of information warfare: combat control systems, information and intelligence, electronic, psychological, hacker, economic cybernetic and [18].

The combat management systems of the enemy involves the physical destruction and cutting off the command structure of the enemy. Such a struggle can be achieved by direct destruction of governance structures and the destruction of communication lines between a control system with subordinate units. The value of information operations against control systems is that they can be particularly effective in the early stages of the conflict and serve as a basis to achieve a quick victory over the enemy.

Information and intelligence operations involves rapid collection, processing and delivery to the end user the fullest possible information about the enemy in real or near-real time. Create a multilevel system of collecting data provides the most complete picture of the situation in the combat area and facilitates the distribution of information between users.

E-wrestling is a lower information capabilities of the enemy. Accordingly it is subdivided into electronic (in particular, by performances of active and passive jamming), which is considered the main direction, cryptographic (distortion and the elimination of the actual information) and control and communication systems of the enemy.

Psychological operations are a set of activities to disseminate specially prepared information to influence the emotional state, the motivation, the reasoning of actions, decisions and behavior in a favorable opponents for the U.S. and its allies. In scale they may be strategic, operational and tactical, and include four main components: the undermining of the civic spirit, demoralization of the armed forces, disorientation top political and military leadership and a war of cultures. The main tools of management of such operations are national and transnational media, and global communications network, capable of influencing the worldview, political views, legal consciousness, mentality, spiritual ideals and values as individuals and society as a whole.

The hacker fight is a action with the use of software tools (program-mathematical impact of information and communication network), aimed at using, distortion, substitution, or destruction of information contained in the databases of computers and information and communication networks, as well as the reduced efficiency of either incapacitate themselves computers and computer systems. The specific hacking techniques of the fight are of a different nature. Their purpose may be as a complete disabling of computer systems, and initiate various periodic or timed to a specific point-in-time failures, selective distortion contained in the system data, obtaining access to classified information, unauthorized monitoring of computer systems, the distortion of the information traffic.

Cyber warfare covers the full range of concerns and perspectives (organizational, doctrinal, strategic, tactical, technical) conduct information operations and is now becoming increasingly important in the military sphere. The cybernetic notion of struggle rather refers to the organizational form of information warfare than actually fighting information infrastructure of the enemy. Moreover, cyber warfare involves the use of the information infrastructure of the opponent for their own purposes.

Economic struggle is a complex of methods and means of informational influence in the economic sphere. The development of the technical capabilities of the means of communication, transmission and accumulation of information has led to a sharp increase in mobility of capital, sensitivity of global financial, economic and social processes to informational influences, and also to the fact that the state's economy and its financial sector has become an important target for information impact.

Among the available possibilities of using information weapons very effectively presented and those associated with the global space monitoring of economic activities and global control of data traffic. The continuing advance of Internet in the U.S. this information weapons total information awareness can be very effective.

Another form of using information weapons (albeit indirectly) - the so-called "cultural expansion". Involved American experts believe that modernization is carried out today in several countries around the world, requires not just economic transformation and innovative technologies. It is allegedly impossible without changes in the intra-civilizational way of life aimed at the introduction of "Western democratic values". Ultimately, the political context of this phenomenon is reflected in the fact that, challenging the cultural and civilizational identity of States opponents, the Westernization is leading to the erosion of household and behavioral norms, cultural and moral values, indirectly contributing to the erosion of national sovereignty of these countries. I write about this in detail in his book "the Importance of culture: how cultural values shape human progress" by well-known experts L. Harrison and S. Huntington [19].

As follows from numerous studies in the field of information warfare, the technology of cyber-attacks on information and communication networks and computer systems is well studied and consists mainly of the following techniques and methods: the attack on major information and communication hubs for the causing of significant harm to the national infrastructure of the enemy; search "back door" protection of a computer system opponent by cyber attacks on the secret key of cryptographic protection that's used to enhance the standard of cryptographic protection of databases; the ability to use for hacking the computer system of the enemy of the "human factor" in carrying out technical and maintenance works, when secret files are open; creating tools distributed attack resulting in failure of the computer systems of the enemy, the use of "Trojan" virus (disguised as harmless programs), and improving traditional electronic warfare; throwing-in a computer system controlled opponent of the viruses that can paralyse the operation of computers; an attack on a computer system of the opponent with application of viruses,"worms", which triggers an infinite loop distribution, resulting in the data traffic increases significantly, start overload and abnormal operation of computers; application of special techniques of "instant deceleration of the Internet"; setting "bugs" in the sockets for connecting the information communication devices in conference rooms, computer labs, telephone, cable and cabinets; "scavenging" is the most popular method of obtaining lists of passwords and other secret information [20].

Technology tools use of information weapons is the "global information network" (Global Information Grid), which is created in the interests of the Ministry of defense and related intelligence agencies to ensure access to the unified information resources of all military bases, command structures, combat platforms and points of temporary dislocation [21]. It is planned to continue information and communications network of the Ministry of defence, for example "global operational management system" ( Global Command and Control System) to gradually build a "Global information network". Work is performed under the direction of the Agency information systems of the Ministry of defense (Defense Information Systems Agency).

The main technical means of conducting electronic warfare is the global electronic surveillance system "Echelon" (Echelon), allowing you to intercept the information transmitted via electronic communication channels, and to listen to phone calls anywhere in the world [22]. This system, controlled by the national intelligence community, has a wide range of control of any broadcast and cable networks.

Created and deployed by the United States in cooperation with Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand system "Echelon" satellite interception of radio traffic and wireless communications can capture telephone calls, faxes, electronic mail and even data transmitted by the satellite terminals. In collaboration with the system "Echelon" means technical work of allies and partners, which monitor the air in their geographical area. The system consists of the following main elements: 1. Satellites tracking, which control a huge amount of electronic communications; 2. Supercomputers that can analyze up to 10 billion messages per day; 3. The listening points that are deployed around the world (on us military bases on the territories, disguised as a civic organization) and engaged in the interception, recording and decoding of messages.

To coordinate all relevant agencies of the Ministry of defence, in charge of information confrontation, in June 2009 in the joint strategic command U.S. cyber command was formed (U.S. Cyber Command), reached in may 2010, the status of initial operational capability. Led the new command of Lieutenant-General Keith Alexander, also retained his post of the head of the national security Agency [23]. The total number of employees of the NSA (headquartered in Fort Meade, Maryland) is about 120 thousand people, of whom three-quarters work in regional centers located around the world. In the interests of the NSA there are about 4 thousand stations of radio communications, are deployed on all continents. The NSA budget is estimated to be $ 15 billion. For comparison: as of January 2011 the number of FBI agents was about 35 thousand people, and on their funding last year from the Federal budget was spent 7.9 billion dollars.

Thus, the actions of the military-political leadership in the area of information warfare aimed at creating a single centre for the management of all operations in the information space with focus in it the necessary technical means and operational capabilities.


3. Cyberwarfare and "controlled crises"

In the early 1990s, Washington had begun to research and development challenges associated with conflict in the information space - the so-called information war. This term means an integrated information system of state and military control of the enemy, which, already in peacetime would lead to the adoption of favourable solutions USA, and during the conflict were completely paralysed the functioning of the governance structure of the enemy. Simultaneously with the influence of offensive information warfare involves ensuring reliable protection of national information infrastructure.

The implementation of the concept "information war" means shifting the focus of conflict with traditional forms of attack (fire, shock, maneuver) in the information and intelligent region - in the decision-making process. The main objective of such a war - the disintegration and dismemberment of the integrity of the control grouping isolated from each other, disoriented and uncontrollable elements and their subsequent destabilization.

According to American analysts, the information war consists of actions undertaken to obtain information superiority, which refers to the achievement of military-strategic advantages at the expense of higher than the enemy's, information potential, which allows you to keep the enemy in constant tension, while increasing combat stability of own forces [24]. The main objectives of information warfare thus lies in bringing down computer systems of the enemy; entering into a computer database strategically important departments and gaining access to classified documents by hacking into the information and communication networks of the enemy; gaining access to the latest (including classified) developments in the field of high technologies; obtain strategic data on foreign and military policies; economic intelligence; tracking in real-time unauthorized users of the operative facts of passing secret information; in the organization of the surveillance of the citizens of different States; disconnecting the connection with rescue services and warning systems; the propaganda war in the information space; organization of information security by countering any attempts of the enemy to infiltrate in the computer system, ensure national security; to combat cyberterrorism.

The current concept of "information warfare" provides: suppression of the (wartime) use of elements of information infrastructure of state and military control of the enemy (the defeat of the automated centres of command and control); electromagnetic interaction with the elements of the information and telecommunications system (electronic warfare); obtaining intelligence by interception and decryption of information streams transmitted via a secure connection, and also due to the special implementation of technical means of interception; unauthorized access to information resources of the enemy and their subsequent distortion, destruction or theft or disruption of its computer systems; formation and mass distribution via information channels of the enemy or of the global information and communication networks of disinformation or tendentious information for influencing the evaluation, intentions and spiritual orientation of the population, and political and military leaders that make strategic decisions; obtaining the information of interest by intercepting and processing data transmitted over insecure channels, as well as circulating in global information and communication networks and published in the media [25].

Practical realization of the concept "information war" is carried out by conducting information operations that are interrelated by purpose, location and time of events and actions, directed on management of processes of manipulation of information to achieve and maintain information superiority over the enemy by acting on its information infrastructure, while protecting their own. Accordingly, all information operations are divided into offensive and defensive.

Offensive and defensive information operations may be conducted under a single concept and plan and to complement each other. They target the same receptors, which can act controls the state of the opponent and its armed forces; information systems civil infrastructure (telecommunication, transport, energy sector, financial and industrial sectors); control elements of the military infrastructure (systems of control, communication, intelligence, command and control, logistics, weapons control); society in General (civilians and military personnel); the management and staff of automated systems of state and military administration involved in policy decisions.

Information warfare is not just one type of security operations of the armed forces by violation of processes of monitoring and control of troops, electronic countermeasures, psychological impact, etc. It requires going far beyond these problems. About it tell results of research conducted by experts at the RAND Corporation in the late 1990s [26]

In these and other studies, first coined the term "strategic information warfare" (strategic information warfare) [27]. Such a war, by definition of the authors, is "the use by States of the global information space and infrastructure to conduct strategic information operations and reducing the impact on our information resource". It should be noted that this terminology differs substantially from the official interpretation of the information war, is enshrined in the doctrinal documents of the Ministry of defense and put into circulation at the beginning of the 1990s, who considered such a war in a relatively narrow sense.

According to experts at the RAND Corporation, changes in socio-political life of some States, due to the rapid pace of Informatization and computerization of society, lead to the revision of the geopolitical views of the military-political leadership, the emergence of new strategic interests (including in the information space), and hence to changes in the policies of these countries. The authors emphasize that the global contradiction will require new tools and resolution methods, namely the impact on strategic information resource. They highlighted the key features of the information war: a relatively low cost of creation of means of information warfare; the ability to freely "violate" traditional state boundaries in the preparation and conducting information operations; the ability to manipulate information; changing priorities in the activities of strategic intelligence, which moved into the region in winning and maintaining information superiority; the difficulty of detecting the beginning of information operations; the difficulty of building a coalition against the aggressor who had unleashed an information war; the presence of potential threats within the United States.

It is recommended to place the center coordinate to counter threats in the information space in the vicinity of the President, because only in this way can provide the required level of coordination among all Federal agencies; to assess the vulnerability of key elements of the national information infrastructure; to ensure the state's dominant role in coordinating work to address threats in the information space; to make adjustments to the national cyber security strategy and national military strategy in accordance with the features of the strategic information war. Special attention is drawn to the fact that the national military strategy are not adequate to the threats that may arise in the course strategic information warfare.

The key new concept introduced is the classification of strategic information warfare the first and second generations. The war of the first generation was considered in a number of traditional means of warfare. It was stressed that it is more oriented to the disruption of control systems of the enemy and is more like a traditional software capabilities. So, strategic information warfare, first generation was defined as "one of several components of future strategic warfare, used in conjunction with other tools to achieve goals". In other words, the concept of "strategic information warfare of the first generation" actually incorporates the main methods of information warfare that are already being implemented at the political-military level and which do not intend to change in the foreseeable future.

Other business information warfare of the second generation. It is defined as "a fundamentally new type of strategic warfare, brought to life by information revolution, introducing into the area of strategic information warfare space and other areas (first of all, the economy and the financial sector) and continued for a long time". It was noted that the development and improvement of approaches to conduct strategic information warfare the second generation in the long term can lead to complete rejection of traditional military force as a coordinated information operations can afford to do without this extreme measure. It was also stressed that if the effects of war first generation is still possible to predict using existing methods, the second-generation information war is very difficult to predict, and existing techniques may be applied to the analysis of consequences is very conditional.

At a certain transformation of views on information warfare, and change objectives that need to be addressed to achieve this goal. For information warfare of the first generation is fire suppression elements of information infrastructure of state and military control of the enemy; electronic warfare; obtaining intelligence through intercepting and deciphering information flows transmitted via communication channels; unauthorized access to information resources of the enemy and their subsequent misrepresentation or theft; the formation and mass distribution via information channels of the enemy or of the global information and communication networks of disinformation to influence the estimates, the intentions of the individuals that make strategic decisions; obtaining the information of interest by intercepting open-source information.

For "the war of the second generation" is the creation of an atmosphere of spirituality and immorality, negative attitudes towards cultural heritage; the manipulation of public consciousness of social groups to form political tensions and chaos; destabilization of relations between political movements to provoke conflicts, aggravation of political struggle; the reduction of the level of information support of bodies of state and military management, difficulty making strategic decisions; misinformation of the population about the work of public authorities, undermine their authority, discredit bodies of state administration; to provoke social, political, national and religious clashes; initiation of strikes, mass riots and other actions of socio-economic protest; the undermining of the international authority of the state of the opponent, its cooperation with other countries; damage to the vital interests of the state opponent in various fields.

Accordingly, it is possible to draw analogies with escalated dramatically at the turn of 2010-2011, the political situation in several countries in the Middle East and North Africa. Erupted in 2008 and the global financial crisis superimposed on the regional socio-economic problems specific manifested in each of the countries of the region (in which today there are the "people's revolution"), but with similar features. So, almost simultaneously in the American media was launched a coordinated propaganda campaign aimed mainly at the population of the countries of the region. Its principal feature is an unprecedented swagger criticism of internal and foreign policy of a "failed regime" and government representatives. Trained by American experts, the material is placed in opposition-controlled local media. At the same time, the population of the countries of the region have persistently imposed the idea of "inevitability of change", as well as universal support of the "people's revolutions" the United States and allegedly taken by American management solutions to provide financial and material assistance to "embark on the path of democracy," new governments in these countries. The conclusion of the strategic well-planned information operation which is part of the so-called strategy of "controlled crisis" and makes sense in the case when the need for a radical change of scenery is long overdue, and funds of direct military intervention is not sufficient or their use is currently impractical for any reasons [28].

It should be noted that in today "materialy" the world's so-called "independent" (and is effectively controlled by the United States) the largest high-tech telecommunications and broadcasting companies increases significantly. Thus, the formation of their information monopoly on events in the region in conjunction with the information blockade of the enemy was thus informational superiority, which combines maximum information effect with the main political and strategic military goals of the operation. It is noteworthy that in June 2010, then-defense Secretary Robert gates approved the document on the replacement of the American armed forces the term "psychological operations" with the term "military operations on information security" (military information support operations). Thus, continued active efforts to further increase the effectiveness of the special information operations (special information operations) to achieve information superiority over the enemy. Of particular importance here the American government assigns to the operations of "decapitation", whose main purpose is the automated centres of the state and military administration, systems of control and communication, political and military leaders.

According to Professor M. Libicki, such operations may be a decisive factor for the outcome of entire military campaigns, particularly if they occurred at the right time and the right place. The blows inflicted on the structures of strategic management, can be even more effective than the removal of any "unmanaged" political or military leader of the enemy. Operation "beheading" can be applied to States, political course which does not meet the strategic directions of Washington. When conducting such operations possible physical elimination of a political leader, and his moral and political discrediting in the eyes of the local population and the international community. For such operations, special forces units. An example of one such operation may be the elimination on may 2 2011 in Pakistan leader of the international network "al-Qaeda" beladen. "The terrorist number one in the world" was eliminated (officially) one of the divisions Navy seals - structural component special operations forces of the U.S. armed forces. Thus, according to M. Libicki, do not have to use fire weapons. The greatest effect can give a variety of means of information influence computer viruses, electromagnetic pulses, and a power outage, since their effective application don't even need to know the exact coordinates of strategic points of control of the enemy.

Note that the theoretical study of various aspects of information warfare is underway in the US for a long time. In 2001 the RAND Corporation published a study, "Operations against enemy leaders" [29]. Its author, C. Hosmer, examining the different forms of application of such operations, identified three main of them: 1. Operations aimed directly against a political leader; 2. Surgery designed to initiate and facilitate the shift of the political leader through internal conspiracies or riots; 3. Operations, promoting the shift of political leader as a result of the intervention of military force from outside.

The goals of the American leadership in conducting such operations can be: coercion of a state-opponent to abandon their own foreign or military policy, does not fit with U.S. strategic attitudes; deterrence of States from possible opponent actions contrary to American interests in the region; the displacement of potentially hostile to the United States of political regimes; the deprivation of state opponent the opportunity to conduct full-scale hostilities or to organize resistance.

In General, according to S. Hosmer, physical elimination as a result of this operation is a political leader may lead to degradation of the entire system of strategic management of the enemy, and successfully conducted the operation on its elimination may also have a negative impact on morale of enemy troops. Write about this and other American experts [30]. In any case, in their opinion, the method of "material incentives" for activities that serve the strategic interests of the United States used the us command in relation to political and military leaders of the enemy, much cheaper than the waste of considerable material and technical resources, as well as other political and economic costs usually associated with a full-scale military operations.

An important role in the information war the American government assigns to the Internet, which also becomes a powerful strategic resource. In January 2010, U.S. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton announced a new American strategy, whose main goal - "combating dictatorships over the Internet" [31]. The selection criteria for the purposes of this strategy remains for the U.S. military-political leadership.

The most important element of information operations - the so-called "international public information" (international public information) carried out by the State Department. And easy tools - different segments of the Internet, including social networks [in the cold war, the distribution of "soft power" in the world performed Information Agency of the USA (United States Information Agency), became in 1998 one of the divisions of the Department of state]. As the example of the Internet resource "Wikileaks" (Wikileaks), the potential of social networks is so high that it could lead to a crisis of political authority simultaneously on the territories of several States [32]. Thus the local scale of popular unrest can escalate into regional and even global.

Along with the offensive aspects of information warfare, American military and political leadership attaches great importance to and the protection of national information space and information infrastructure in General. The Deputy Secretary of defense William Lynn, coordinating all aspects of information security, speaking in June 2009 at the Washington-based Center for strategic and international studies, said that "computer systems and databases of the Ministry of defence are constantly exposed to cyber attacks from foreign intelligence services, as well as various structures and hackers interested in obtaining classified information for military purposes" [33]. For example, in 2007, as a result of a hacker attack planned out of service immediately 1,5 thousand computers of the Pentagon. The evaluation of the then Minister of defence R. gates, Department withstand every day hundreds of cyber attacks only from countries that are considered allies or partners of the United States.

Their main opponents in the global information space U.S. military-political leadership considers primarily China and Russia. About this it is repeatedly stated in reports on the problem of leak of national secrets and take part in services of different countries [34]. In recognition W. Lynn, cases of hacking of computer systems of the Ministry of defence are increasing and becoming more sophisticated. In his article "protection of the new space: cyberstratege the Pentagon," he writes that "in the last ten years, each day there are several thousand cases of sensing of the U.S. military and civilian computer systems and implement them in cases of reading information millions... as a result, the opponents of the United States received thousands of secret documents, including blueprints of new weapons systems, plans, combat operations, and operational data of observation" [35]. As the article, the massive hacker attack on its computer systems of the Ministry of defence has undergone in 2008, Then one of the closed information and communication networks of the Ministry was attacked by hackers. The result was a lot of stolen military secrets, directly related to the sphere of national security. The subsequent efforts of the military leadership to counter cyber attacks have become a turning point in U.S. cyber security strategy: began to develop a powerful and multi-layered protection of information and communications networks.

Serious concern was expressed by Lynn's immediate subordinate, Lieutenant General Keith Alexander, head of cyber command. In the report made to the Senate Committee on armed services on April 15, 2010, he noted that hackers daily make hundreds of thousands of hacking attempts and viral infection of computer systems of the Ministry of defence. In this case the daily number of hacker attacks on information resources of the Pentagon have recently increased significantly. The main opponent of the United States in the global information space K. Alexander believes first and foremost China. In his view, the increasing scale of cyber attacks on the information infrastructure of the Pentagon and the enterprises American military-industrial complex in the future is fraught with serious complications. China, according to Alexander, can expand their capabilities in this area and try to get some control over individual segments of the Internet that is likely to go against US interests in the area of national security.

Writes about this in his study "Internet Governance in an age of kiberbezopasnosti" and R. Naik, the representative of influential new York Council on foreign relations [36]. The U.S., in his view, depend largely on the implementation of measures to combat cyber threats. However, due to the increase in these threats and their constant transformation of the nature of the relevant structures of the Pentagon and other Federal agencies simply do not have time to develop appropriate responses. During the implementation of the initiatives of the Ministry of defense for the protection of information space, according to Naic should be the decision of paramount tasks. He proposes concentrating in a single entity the resources of all Federal agencies of the U.S. concerned with protecting information and communication networks. To this task, in his opinion, are required to join and private firms executing orders on contracts with the Pentagon. It is also important to define more clearly the tasks that have to solve the cyber command, and to determine the priorities of its activities. In addition, according to Naka, it is necessary to identify vulnerabilities of the national information infrastructure and to develop information security standards. Finally, the Ministry of defence should form a special response team, which will have all the tools to counter cyber attacks and curb all attempts of hacking of computer systems at the very early stages.

These findings are consistent and the position of another high-ranking employee of the Pentagon, senior analyst MO sh Brimly. In his article "security in shared spaces", he drew attention to the vulnerability of existing private information and communication networks of the Ministry [37]. In this respect the greatest danger to the United States, in his opinion, represents the Chinese government by mid-century are going to achieve such a level of development of information and telecommunication technologies, which enable them to ensure total victory in the information war. That is why Washington considers the constant growth in the import of Chinese microchips in U.S. a big problem for national security.

The importance of a comprehensive protection of the informational space are saying and other American experts. So, retired General William Clark (served as Supreme allied commander of NATO in Europe, to command the armed forces of the Alliance during the war in Yugoslavia in 1999 and P. Levin (an expert in the field of information security) in the article "Securing the information highway: how to enhance the level of electronic protection of the United States" clearly indicate that one of the biggest issues facing American management, to ensure the authenticity and reliability of specialized high-tech products and components shipped from abroad, primarily from China, [38].

As the article, there are ways of detecting covert specially designed defects in the supplied circuits. For example, inlining in a computer system, special hardware - a compact authentication codes (authentication code) that prevents disabling of the computers by command from outside. This, according to the authors, should strengthen information security by tightening control of the supply chain for high-tech products and improve the ability of computer systems to "self-control" (self-aware). "The American leadership should not advertise the fact that it controls the production process carried out outside the national territory" the authors write. W. Clark and P. Levine stress the emphasis on the fact that in the twenty-first century, the enemy may elect as a target not only information and communication networks and to software and microchips, which element of any computer, i.e. everything that constitutes the basis of the national information infrastructure. Writing about this and other American authors, paying attention to the fact that the active study of the problems of ensuring information security of the Ministry of defense has started to do already in the early 1990s, i.e. since the beginning of the use of digital technologies in the military sphere [39]. So, the main provisions carried out in this area of activities implemented under the program, a key element of which is an approach named by its developers "deep defense" (defense in depth). Information and communication networks, built on this basis, should consist of multi-layered security systems and procedures, using active and passive measures to protect information resources preventing unauthorized access to information. This defense in depth, according to its developers, should protect the information resources by forming a communication strategy of deterrence and capabilities of software tools of information and communication networks. It is believed that this approach would force the enemy to expend their own resources in the process of overcoming multiple layers of protection before it can affect the functioning of the computer systems. This layered concept of information security should allow maximum use of the potential of information technology to minimize the additional investment required to improve them.

Thus, as undertaken since the early 1990s efforts to the comprehensive development of the concept of "information war", American military and political leadership seeks to secure for US in the twenty-first century, the superpower status of the information.


4. Strategic benchmark

Until recently the us leadership predicted the capacity of States opponents in the area, which included three major dimensions - political, economic and military. Today they added a new area - information. And although it is not yet fully formed, already it is clear that in the future there is a need of significant review of basic concepts in the traditional areas. In the emerging information society the key to success, according to the American leadership, will be a skillful management of information resources and capabilities, i.e. strategic planning.

Analysts at the RAND Corporation J. Arquilla and D. Ronfeld in 1999 in the report "the Birth of geopolitiki: the formation of American information strategy" concluded that "traditional strategy is undergoing significant and profound changes" [40]. According to analysts, the growing importance of information and communications for a variety of reasons. Firstly, it is technological innovation, the rapid deployment of vast new information infrastructure including not only the Internet but also cable networks, satellites for direct broadcasting, cellular phones, etc. secondly, the rapid spread of a new type of communication: many state and non-state actors directly exchange important information. Thirdly, the concept of "information" and "power" increasingly become intertwined and inextricably linked.

Information strategy had not yet been determined unambiguously, and American analysts mostly believe in two points of view. One technology is considering as a priority the issue of information security and protection of information in computer systems. The authors of this research group are primarily looking for ways to protect against hacker attacks States-opponents and terrorist organizations [41].Another direction is related to the political and ideological context of the processes of Informatization, in which the information strategy is seen as a way of expression of "soft power" strategies to extend its influence globally, including in the countries-opponents [42]. The proponents of this approach believe that information power allows the United States to "gently" guide the situation in world politics, to a certain extent refusing to "hard" methods of implementation of global dominance, which relies largely on traditional means (primarily the military).

The purpose of both directions is to develop a unified vision of what needs to become an American information strategy in the twenty-first century and how to integrate in the General policy. The main strategic problem they see in the impact on weapons systems and on the identity of the decision-maker on the eve of and during the conflict. From such impact, in their opinion, and depends ultimately the efficiency of action in the global dimension.

In accordance with the program of strategic assessments of the National intelligence Council of the USA in 2008 studies have been conducted that have examined and assessed the opinion of the leading American experts on the problem of transformation of modern society under the influence, including, and the information revolution. The results were summarized in the report "Global trends 2025: transformed world" [43]. It noted that information technology has become one of the most important factors contributing to the dynamic transformation of modern society, its transition from industrial society to the information. Among the main trends of world development, noted the following: the rapid development of information technology and differences in the perception of the results of the information revolution in different regions of the world can lead to the aggravation of international relations; as a result of the information revolution may produce new non-state structures that significantly transform the global economy that, in turn, will affect where people live, and will trigger a new massive wave of migration of the population; the information revolution will significantly affect the mechanisms of management of society and will create new political players; geopolitical trends, which contributes to the information revolution may indicate new challenges to the United States.

Thus, the power of weapons is becoming more certain qualifications. In a very reputable scientific publications have recently been applied to information weapons even coined the term "weapons of mass destruction" (weapon of mass disruption) in contrast to the traditional term "weapons of mass destruction" (weapon of mass destruction) [44]. Obtaining information grade weapons the highest priority, the entity is thus in the order of the day.



[1] Information Warfare. Directive TS 3600.1. Washington D.C.: U. S. Department of Defense, 21 Dec. 1992.

[2] Command and Control Warfare. Joint Publication 3-13.1. Washington D.C.: Joint Chiefs of Staff, Feb. 1996.

[3] Joint Doctrine for Information Operations. Joint Publication 3-13. Washington D.C.: Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dec. 1998.

[4] B. Graham, Bush Orders Guidelines for Cyber Warfare // The Washington Post. 7.02.2003.

[5] The National Strategy to Secure Cyber Space. Washington D.C.: The White House, Feb. 2003.

[6] Information Operations Roadmap. Washington D.C.: U. S. Department of Defense. 30 Oct. 2003.

[7] Information Operations. Joint Publication 3-13. Washington D.C.: Joint Chiefs of Staff, 13 Nov. 2006.

[8] Information Operations. D Directive 3600.1. Washington D.C.: U. S. Department of Defense, 14 Aug. 2006.

[9] Information Operations. Directive 10-7. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Air Force, 6 Sep. 2006.

[10] B. Obama, National Framework for Strategic Communication. Washington D.C.: The White House, 2009.

[11] Cyber Space Policy Review: Assuring a Trusted and Resilient Information and Communications Infrastructure. Washington D.C.: The White House, May 2009.

[12] Securing Cyberspace for the 44th Presidency. CSIS Commission on Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency. Washington D.C.: CSIS, Feb. 2008.

[13] R. Butler Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber and Space Policy. Testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategy Forces. Washington D.C., Apr 21. 2010; Lynn W. Deputy Secretary of Defense. Remarks. National Space Symposium. Colorado Springs, 14 Apr. 2010.

[14] Informational Strategy for Cyberspace: Prosperity, Security, and Openness in a Networked World. Washington. Washington D.C.: The White House, May 2011.

[15] Department of Defense Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace. Washington D.C.: U. S. Department of Defense, July 2011.

[16] M. ONeil Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes. L.: Pluto Press, 2009; Technology, Policy, Law and Ethics Regarding U.S. Acquisition and Use of Cyberattack Capabilities / Ed. by W. Owens, K. Dam and H. Lin. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2010.

[17] M. Libicki Cyberdeterrence and Cyberwar. Santa Monica (Calif.): RAND, 2009.

[18] Libicki M. What is Information Warfare. Santa Monica: RAND, 1995.

[19] Harrison L., Huntington, S. Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. N. Y.: Basic Books, 2000.

[20] A. De Borchgrave, F. Cilluffo, S. Cardash,, M. Ledgerwood, Cyber Threats and Information Security: Meeting the 21st Century Challenges. Washington D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 2001; Cordesman A. Cyberthreats, Information Warfare, and Critical Infrastructure Protection. Washington D.C.: CSIS, 2001.

[21] M. Libicki, Who Runs What in the Global Information Grid: Ways to Share Local and Global Responsibility. Santa Monica: RAND, 2000.

[22] Hildreth S. Cyber Warfare: Background and Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress. RL 30735. Washington D.C.: CRS, 19 June 2001.

[23] K. Alexander, Lt. Gen. Testimony (Confirmed as the First Commander of U.S. Cyber Command) to the Senate Committee on Armed Services. Washington D.C., 15 Apr. 2010.

[24] D. Lonsdale The Nature of War in the Information Age: Clausewitzian Future. L.: Routledge, 2004.

[25] C. Wilson, Computer Attack and Cyber Terrorism: Vulnerabilities and Policy Issues for Congress. CRS Report for Congress. RL32114. Washington D.C.: CRS, 2003.

[26] Arquilla J., Ronfeldt D. In Athenas Camp: Preparing for Conflict in the Information Age. Santa Monica: RAND, 1997.

[27] R. Malander, A. Riddile, and P. Wilson, Strategic Information Warfare: A New Face of War. Santa Monica: RAND, 1996; G. Rattray, Strategic Warfare in Cyberspace. Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press, 2001.

[28] Pincus W. Pentagon reviewing strategic information operations // The Washington Post. 27.12.2009.

[29] S. Hosmer, Operations Against Enemy Leaders. Santa Monica: RAND, 2001.

[30] T. Rid, M. Hecker War 2.0: Irregular Warfare in the Information Age. Westport (Calif.): Praeger, 2007.

[31] H. Clinton Remarks on Internet Freedom. Speech. Washington D.C., 21 Jan. 2010.

[32] S. Snahe Obama takes a hard line against leaks to press // The New York Times.

[33] Lynn W. Protecting the Domain: Cybersecurity as a Defense Priority. Speech. Washington D.C.: CSIS, 2009.

[34] Securing Our Nations Cyber Infrastructure. Washington D.C.: The White House; Office of the Press Secretary, 29 May 2009.

[35] Lynn W. Defending a new domain: The Pentagons cyberstrategy / Foreign Affairs. Sept./Oct. 2010. V. 89. No. 5. P. 97-108.

[36] R. Knake Internet Governance in an Age of Cyber Insecurity. N. Y. Council on Foreign Relations, 2010.

[37] S. Brimley Promoting security in common domains // The Washington Quarterly. July 2010. V. 33. No. 3. P. 119-132.

[38] W. Clark, P. Levin, Securing the information highway: how to enhance the United States electronic defenses // Foreign Affairs. Nov./Dec. 2009. V. 88. No. 6. P. 5-17.

[39] C. McGiffert, Chinese Soft Power and Its Implications for the United States: Competition and Cooperation in the Developing World. Washington D.C.: CSIS, 2009.

[40] Arquilla J., Ronfeldt D. The Emergence of Neopolitik: Toward an American Information Strategy. Report MR-1033-OSD. Santa Monica: RAND, 1999.

[41] Adams, J. The Next World War: Computers are the Weapons & the Front Line is Everywhere. N. Y.: Simon & Schuster, 1998; Bremmer I. Democracy in сyberspace: what information technology can and cannot do // Foreign Affairs. Nov./Dec. 2010. V. 89. No. 6. P. 86-92; R. Haeni, Information Warfare: An Introduction. Washington D.C.: The George Washington University Cyberspace Policy Institute, 1997; D. Perlmutter, Visions of War: Picturing War from the Stone Age to the Cyber Age. N. Y.: St. Martins Griffin, 1999; Post, D. In Search of Jeffersons Moose: Notes on the State of Cyberspace. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

[42] Castells M. Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009; The Battle for Hearts and Minds: Using Soft Power to Undermine Terrorist Networks / Ed. by A. Lennon. Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press, 2003; Public Sentinel: News Media and Governance Reform / Ed. by P. Norris. Washington D.C.: World Bank Publications, 2009; Nye J. Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. N. Y: Public Affairs, 2004; J. Nye, The Future of American Power: Dominance and Decline in Perspective // Foreign Affairs. Nov./Dec. 2010. V. 89. No. 6. P. 2-12;

Soft Power and U.S. Foreign Policy: Theoretical, Historical and Contemporary Perspectives / Ed. by I. Parmar and M. Cox. N.Y., L.: Routledge, 2010; Sartori A. Deterrence by Diplomacy. Princeton. 2005; Shirky, C. The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change // Foreign Affairs. Jan./Feb. 2011. V. 90. No. 1. P. 2841; Soft Power Superpowers: Cultural and National Assets of Japan and the United States / Ed. by Y. Watanabe and D. McConnell. N. Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 2008; Wolf Ch., B. Rosen, Public Diplomacy: How to Think About and Improve it. Santa Monica: RAND, 2004.

[43] Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. Washington D.C.: National Intelligence Council, 2008.

[44] Schmidt E., Cohen J. The digital disruption: connectivity and the diffusion of power // Foreign Affairs. Nov./Dec. 2010. V. 89. No. 6. P. 75-85.


George Korsakov


RELATED MATERIALS: Defence and security