Escalation - what is it? The word is quite often used in scientific and journalistic literature, but few people know its meaning. The escalation of the conflict is usually called the period in which the contention passes the main stages of its development and approaches its end. The term comes from the Latin language and in translation means "ladder". Escalation shows a conflict that progresses over time, characterized by a gradual aggravation of the 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 the dispute is the path from the incident to the weakening of the struggle and confrontation.

Signs and types of conflict escalation

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

cognitive sphere

In behavioral and activity reactions narrows, there comes a moment of transition to less complex forms of displaying reality.

The image of the enemy

It is he who blocks and weakens adequate perception. Being a holistically formed analogue of the opponent, it combines fictional, fictitious properties, as it begins to form during a conflict. is a kind of outcome 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: it is stable, quite objective and mediated. At its core, it resembles poorly developed photographs, the image on which is pale, fuzzy, blurry. But under the influence of escalation, illusory moments are increasingly manifested, the emergence of which is provoked by a negative emotional and personal assessment of each other by opponents. In these cases, there are some "symptomatic" features inherent in very many conflicting people. In their enemy, they see a person who should not be trusted. The blame is shifted on her, only wrong decisions and actions are expected from her - a harmful personality, which at the same time is the result of antagonistic deindividualization, when the enemy ceases to be an individuality, 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 grows with terrifying intensity, the opposite side loses control, 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, so 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 kind of environment in which contradictions deepen. In the escalation process, the interests of the opposing sides become "opposite". In the situation preceding the confrontation, their coexistence was possible, but now their reconciliation is impossible without harming one of the disputants.

Violence

It serves as an excellent tool in the course of the escalation of the conflict, being its identifying sign. The desire for compensation and compensation by the opposing side for the harm caused provokes the individual to aggression, cruelty, intolerance. An escalation of violence, that is, an intensification of ruthless, militant actions, often accompanies the course of this or that misunderstanding.

Initial 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 reasons and causes, 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. There are additional points of contact between the parties, and the confrontation is already unfolding over a larger area. Conflictologists at this stage fix the expansion of spatial and temporal frameworks. This indicates that we are facing a progressive, serious escalation. What it is, and how it will affect the subjects participating in the conflict or observing it, can only be known after the end of the confrontation and its careful analysis.

Growth in the number of entities

With the growth of confrontation, there is also a "multiplication" of participants. An inexplicable and uncontrollable influx of new subjects of the conflict begins, which takes on a global scale, developing into a group, international, etc. The internal structure of groups, their composition, and their characteristics are changing. The set of funds is becoming wider, or it can go in a completely different direction.

At this stage, we can turn to the information that psychiatrists present to us. They concluded that in the course of any conflict, the conscious sphere regresses significantly. Moreover, this does not happen at all by chaotic obsession, but gradually, with the preservation of specific patterns.

Step by step escalation

It is necessary to understand what are the mechanisms of conflict escalation. 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, the fear of the impossibility of getting out of the situation exclusively by peaceful means, through mutual assistance and concessions. The tension of the psyche 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. With rigidity, rudeness and violence, the opposing sides try to influence each other, forcing the opponent to change his position. Nobody is going to give up on this. Wisdom and rationality disappear as if by magic, and the image of the enemy becomes the main object of attention.

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, listen to it, and is guided in his actions only by "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 unambiguous and primitive.

At the fifth stage, moral beliefs and the most important values ​​break down. All parties and individual elements that characterize the opponent are assembled into a single image of the enemy, devoid of human features. 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 subjected to pressure, regression occurs. In many ways, the psychological stability of a person depends on his upbringing, on the type of moral norms that he has learned, and on personal social experience.

Symmetrical schismogenesis, or scientific escalation

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

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

Obviously, the escalation of the conflict refers specifically to the second variation of schismogenesis. But also various forms of escalations can be classified. For example, it may not be interrupted and be marked by increasing tension, or it may become undulating, when sharp corners and mutual pressure of opponents on each other move either along an upward 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 calmness to hostility is incredibly fast and non-stop, and 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

The positive escalation of the conflict is the possibility of its elimination when there is a common desire for a peaceful settlement. In this case, both parties must analyze and choose those rules of conduct that do not violate the principles and beliefs of either of the opponents. In addition, it is necessary to choose the most preferable from the whole range of alternative 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, which should also be subsequently heard. From the entire list of requirements, select those that meet and justice, and then begin attempts to implement them using means and methods that must also be accepted and approved by all opponents.

Conflict, of course, should never be ignored. It looks like negligence when people leave a switched on iron or a burning match in the apartment - there is a threat of fire. The analogy between a fire and a conflict is not accidental: both are much easier to prevent than to extinguish once ignited. The time component is of great importance, because both a fire and a quarrel are terrible in their spread with greater force. In these signs, the basic principle of escalation is similar to a disease or an epidemic.

The escalation of the conflict is often confused, because the contradiction is replenished with new details, features, 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 insignificant dissonance flares up or is already flowing 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, will be taken as meanness, cowardice, cowardice.

Models of conflict escalation. Dead point

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

• One opposing side is ready for a voluntary concession due to the fact that the conflict for some reason becomes unacceptable for it.
• One of the opponents persistently tries to avoid the conflict, "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 center is a state of affairs when the confrontation comes to a standstill, stops after one or more unsuccessful clashes. The change in the pace of the escalation or its completion is due to certain factors.

Factors of occurrence of "dead center"

Objectively speaking, this stage is not characterized by profound changes, but one of the parties begins to have a completely different attitude to the conflict and ways to resolve it. When both sides agree that the predominance of one of them is impossible, they will have to give in, give up victory or agree. But the essence of this stage lies in the realization that the enemy is not just an enemy, personifying all the vices and sorrows of the world. and a worthy opponent, with its own shortcomings and advantages, with which it is possible and necessary to find common interests, 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 will be able to overcome the emerging contradictions, and how sad the consequences will be.

It's funny, but quite often I come across the question "what is escalation" and "what does it mean to escalate" despite the fact that this is one of the most basic concepts in both project management and management in general. Therefore, this post (beware, spoiler!) will be full of rather banal things about escalation, if you know all about it, do not open it. I warned.

So what is escalation? Wikipedia gives a universal definition - it is a gradual increase, intensification, expansion of something (for example, corruption in power, or an escalation of a war); buildup (of armaments, etc.), spread (of a conflict, etc.), aggravation (of provisions, etc.).

Beautiful, but it is difficult to connect with project management, but everything is very simple.

Escalation is the “rise to the top” of a conflict or problem that you cannot resolve on your own within your role or authority.

Normally, the process looks like this: project team members interact with each other, and if they cannot agree among themselves, or solve some external problem on their own, they escalate the issue to the project manager. If he can resolve the issue, he resolves it; if not, he escalates higher.

Escalation is also one of the main tools used in risk management.

My escalation rules:

1. Try to negotiate without escalation.
2. If it was not possible - to honestly warn that since we did not agree - I have to escalate the issue to such and such a manager, because the interests of the project and all that. After that, in a miraculous way, in half the cases it is possible to agree.
3. Think over a clear argument from the position and on its results / deadlines / budget and other restrictions.
4. Include in the letter (put in a copy) or invite the other party to the conflict to a meeting with the leader in order to resolve the issue jointly. If the issue is critically important for the project, do not forget to include the project sponsor in the process, agreeing your position with him in advance.
5. Get a result, while remembering that a negative decision is also a result. And if, for example, during the escalation I did not manage to get the necessary resource, this is an occasion to reflect this in the risk management plan and note in the protocol that as a result the impact on the project is such and such.
6. Continue to work as usual, without making conclusions like “they are all wrong”, “the manager who did not give the resource is a scoundrel”, “then do your own project, which of us needs it at all”, and so on. Escalation is a workflow in which there is no place for personal perception. Although some adjustments can be made after that, since now you have a better idea of ​​\u200b\u200btheir motivation, influence, etc.

Often project managers are afraid of the very word “escalation”, for some reason believing that if they take the problem higher, they will demonstrate their incompetence, inability to manage a team, and so on. And in vain, until you are the CEO - you still will not have 100% of influence and power (and in the case of CEO too), which means that situations in which escalation is needed are inevitable. And it is better to do it earlier, while the project has not suffered too much damage.

1. Goes renovation in a new building, a team headed by a foreman and an interior designer, who supervises the work, works at the facility. The goal of the project seems to be the same - to make sure that you move into your cozy apartment, made in strict accordance with the design project, as soon as possible. They do the shopping.
2. Situation 1: The store did not have the same tile that looked so good on the visualization. Wrong: buy a similar tile yourself or order the same one, but wait three months to receive it. Do not tell me anything so that I do not think that they are unprofessionals who are not able to cope with a simple problem. That's right: formulate what options there are (for the option to replace the tile - update the visualization) and ask me. A typical example of escalation, everything is logical, but replacing the tile with the purchase of servers with "wrong" characteristics - and here you have a potential disruption of the project due to the fact that someone was afraid to escalate in time.
3. Situation 2: the designer believes that sockets and switches should be made exactly as in the design project and on its drawings, and the foreman - that some of the components need to be replaced, they are beautiful, but non-functional according to his experience in other apartments. Wrong: to quarrel, to consider that the other is incompetent and “just doesn’t know how to cook them”, to drag out the conflict, but I won’t tell you for anything. It’s also wrong to come to me separately, “squeal” on the unprofessionalism of a colleague, ask to take my side. I will still listen to both, but I will take the approach myself “on a pencil”. That's right: to formulate why it will be inconvenient to use (perhaps this will not be a problem for me?), explain what can be done and how it will affect the project as a whole (will you have to buy new sockets for the whole apartment for 30,000 rubles? Will it be delayed by 2 weeks?), give examples and give contacts of people for whom everything works beautifully and conveniently with this component.

P.S. Before the new year there was a post with

The word escalation is translated from English as "climbing with the help of a ladder." It is used to denote a gradual increase, strengthening, expansion, buildup, distribution, aggravation of something.

Most often, this term is used in relation to the concept of conflict. It was most widely used during the Cold War.
The escalation of the conflict means its development, progressing in time, the aggravation of the confrontation, in which the opponents influence each other on the rise. The escalation of the conflict begins with an incident and ends with the weakening of the confrontation, the transition to its completion.
Signs of an escalating conflict:

• A clearer representation of the image of the enemy

In a conflict situation, distrust of the opponent increases, the blame is placed on him, he is identified with evil.

• Increasing emotional tension

The emotional load increases in direct proportion to the growth of threat and resistance from the opponent.

• Replacing arguments with claims

Many perceive criticism of their arguments as a negative attitude towards their personality and begin to use the tactics of personal attacks.

• Deepening contradictions

When the conflict escalates, the interests of one opponent can exist solely by ignoring the interests of the other.

• Violent actions

Aggression and violence, as a rule, manifest themselves when the opposing side seeks to compensate for the damage caused to it or to compensate for low self-esteem.

• Reducing the role of the original subject of the conflict

An argument over some controversial object gradually turns into a more global stage of confrontation, in which the conflict no longer depends on the causes that caused it.

• Spread of conflict

The contradictions become deeper, the boundaries of the confrontation expand in time and space.

• Adding new members

New participants are attracted, the group structure changes, as a result of which the set of tools used in the conflict expands.
In international conflicts, the role of the main actors, as a rule, is played by states. Distinguish:

• interstate conflicts;
• national liberation wars;
• internal internationalized conflicts.

Interstate conflict often takes the form of war. The war is larger than the conflict, the whole society participates in it, while only certain social groups take part in the social conflict. Plus, the war significantly affects the subsequent development of the state, in contrast to the military conflict, which can cause only minor changes.
The term "escalation" can be used in relation to other concepts. For example, escalating a problem means discussing the problem at a higher level. And with the escalation of the customs tariff, the rates of customs duties increase in accordance with the degree of processing of the goods.

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

What does the escalation of a dispute, conflict, incident, war, tension or issue mean?

Expand content

Collapse content

Escalation is the definition

Escalation is a term (from the English. Escalation letters. climbing with the help of a ladder), denoting a gradual increase, increase, build-up, aggravation, expansion of something. In the Soviet press, the term became widespread in the 1960s in connection with the expansion of US military aggression in Indochina. It is used in relation to armed conflicts, disputes, various problems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The tariff structure of many countries primarily provides protection for national producers of finished products, especially without preventing the import of raw materials and semi-finished products.

For example, nominal and effective food tariffs are 4.7% and 10.6% respectively in the USA, 25.4% and 50.3% in Japan, and 10.1% and 17.8% in the European Union. The almost twofold excess of the actual level of taxation of food products above the nominal level is achieved by imposing import duties on food products from which they are made. Therefore, it is the effective, and not the nominal, level of customs protection that is the subject of negotiations during the emergence of trade conflicts between the three centers of the modern market economy.

Tariff escalation - 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 producers of finished products 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 duty of which is minimal, they can really break into their market. At the same time, the market for finished products is practically closed to developing countries due to the significant tariff escalation that takes place in most developed countries.

So, the 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 set of customs duty rates, systematized in accordance with the commodity nomenclature of foreign economic activity, applied to goods transported across the customs border; a specific rate of customs duty payable when exporting or importing a certain product into the customs territory of the country. Customs duties can be classified according to the method of collection, the object of taxation, nature, origin, types of rates and method of calculation. The customs duty is imposed on the customs value of the goods - the normal price of the goods, which is formed on the open market between an 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 rate of duty is indicated in the import tariff and only approximately indicates the level of customs protection of the country. The actual rate of the tariff shows the actual level of customs taxation of the 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 - an increase in 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 US, the scale of tariff escalation 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 strong in developed countries.

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

Escalation of the conflict

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

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

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

2. Displacement of adequate perception of the other, the image of the enemy.

The image of the enemy as a holistic view 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 opposition, as long as the threats are not implemented, the image of the enemy is indirect. It can be compared to a poorly developed photographic image, where the image is fuzzy and pale.

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

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

Mistrust;

Putting the blame on the enemy;

negative expectation;

Identification with evil;

The "zero-sum" view ("everything that benefits the enemy harms us", and vice versa);

Deindividualization ("everyone who belongs to this group is automatically our enemy");

Denial of condolences.

Strengthening the image of the enemy contribute to:

The growth of negative emotions;

Expecting destructive actions from the other side;

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 the growth of the threat of possible damage; decrease in controllability of the opposite side; inability to realize their interests in the desired volume for a short time; opponent's resistance.

4. The transition from arguments to claims and personal attacks.

When people's opinions collide, people usually try to argue them. Others, evaluating a person's position, thereby indirectly evaluate his ability to argue. A person usually adds a significant personality 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. Criticism in this case is perceived as a threat to a person's self-esteem, and attempts to protect oneself lead to a displacement of the subject of the conflict into a personal plane.

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

A more intense action affects the more important interests of the other side. Therefore, the escalation of the conflict can be considered as a process of deepening contradictions, i.e. as a process of growth of the hierarchical rank of interests, is violated.

In the process of escalation, the interests of opponents seem to be divorced into opposite poles. If in a pre-conflict situation they could somehow coexist, then in the event of an escalation of the conflict, the existence of one is possible only by ignoring the interests of the other side.

6. Use of violence.

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

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

8. Expanding the boundaries of the conflict.

There is a generalization of the conflict, i.e. the transition to deeper contradictions, there are many different points of contact. The conflict spreads over a large area. There is an expansion of its temporal and spatial boundaries.

9. Increase in the number of participants.

This can happen in the process of escalation of the conflict through the involvement of an increasing number of participants. The transformation of an interpersonal conflict into an intergroup conflict, a quantitative increase and a change in the structure of the groups participating in the confrontation, changes the nature of the conflict, expanding the set of means used in it.

With the aggravation of the conflict, there is a regression of the conscious sphere of the psyche. This process is undulating in nature, based on the unconscious and subconscious levels of mental activity. It develops not chaotically, but in stages, according to the plan of the ontogeny of the psyche, but in the opposite direction).

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

The third stage is the actual beginning of the escalation. All expectations are focused on actions that replace futile discussions. However, the expectations of the participants are paradoxical: both sides hope to cause a change in the opponent's position with pressure and toughness, while no one is ready to voluntarily give in. A mature view of reality is sacrificed in favor of a simplistic approach that is easier to support emotionally.

The real problems of the conflict lose importance, while the face of the enemy is in the spotlight.

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

The beginning of the latent phase;

latent phase;

Demonstrative phase;

Aggressive phase;

Battle phase.

At the fourth stage of functioning, the psyche regresses approximately to 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 leans back.

At the fifth stage of the escalation, clear signs of progressive regression appear in the form of absolutization of the opponent's negative assessment and positive assessment of oneself. Sacred values, beliefs and supreme moral obligations are at stake. Force and violence acquire an impersonal form, the perception of the opposite side freezes in the solid image of the enemy. The enemy is devalued to the state of a thing and deprived of human traits. However, the same people are able to function normally within their group. Therefore, it is difficult for an inexperienced observer to perceive a deeply regressed perception of others, to 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 an 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 the existing contradictions, taking into account the potential and possibilities for using various, including violent means, internal and international situations.

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

The fourth stage is the escalation of the struggle, up to a crisis, gradually embracing all the participants from both sides and developing into a nationwide one.

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

The sixth stage is an armed conflict that begins with a limited conflict (limitations in objectives, territories covered, scope and level of military operations, military means used) and 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 subjects are predominantly states:

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

National liberation wars (one of the parties is represented by the state): anti-colonial, wars of peoples, against racism, as well as against governments acting in contradiction to 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 less widespread. Goals are limited. The reasons are debatable. The reason for the war is the deep economic and ideological contradictions between the states. Wars are bigger;

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

War partially changes the further development of the state, a 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 has not known military defeats for millennia, 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, an isolationist and materialistic America cannot suddenly 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 has made its choice. 189 Japanese bombers came in 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, the military power of which Stalin so feared, by its actions brought a great overseas power into the camp of opponents of the "axis" Berlin-Tokyo-Rome.

The self-blindness of the samurai, the criminal pride of Japanese militarism, turned events in such a way that Russia, standing on the edge of the abyss, had a great ally. The rapidly expanding U.S. military has so far served 1.7 million people, but that figure has grown inexorably. The US Navy had 6 aircraft carriers, 17 battleships, 36 cruisers, 220 destroyers, 114 submarines, and the US Air Force had 13,000 aircraft. But a significant part of the American military was chained to 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 the United States in the Pacific and the Americans will not be up to the European theater of war. Britain will be weakened in the Far East and on the eastern approaches to India. America and Britain will not be able to help Russia isolated by Germany and Japan. The Wehrmacht has absolutely free hands to do whatever it wants with its opponent.

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

And the Japanese continued their phenomenal streak of victories throughout the first months of 1942. They landed in Borneo and continued to spread their influence over the Dutch East Indies, taking the city of Manado on Celebes by airborne assault. A few days later they entered the Philippine capital of Manila, launched an offensive against American troops on Bataan and struck at Rabaul, a strategically located British base in the Bismarck archipelago. In Malaya, British troops left Kuala Lumpur. All these reports 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 is a military conflict between the Russian Federation and the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, which took place mainly on the territory of Chechnya from 1994 to 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 Chechen independence.

The Chechen Republic withdrew from the USSR following the withdrawal procedure and the Constitution of the USSR. However, despite this, and the fact that the governments of the USSR, the RSFSR, these actions were recognized and approved, 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, the Russian special services begin to exert increasing influence on the top leadership of the state, and begin to actively intervene in the affairs of the independent states of the neighbors (the former republics of the USSR). With regard 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 that, the Russian special services began an operation to incite an internal Chechen armed conflict. The forces of the anti-Dudaev opposition 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 the military assistance from Moscow and the passionate desire of the leaders of the Chechen opposition to seize power in Grozny on Russian bayonets, the armed confrontation between the Chechens did not reached the desired level of intensity, and 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 amount of anti-tank weapons, small arms and ammunition). The Chechens also created their own regular army and began producing their own assault rifle, the Borzai.

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 crossed out by the losses that the United States suffered in the Middle East. Iran was Washington's main partner in this part of the world. The country was authoritarianly led by Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who in the 1960-1970s carried out a series of reforms for the economic modernization of Iran, and also took measures to limit the influence of religious leaders, in particular, expelling R. Khomeini from the country. Not having received support for his reforms in the requested volume 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 possibilities and needs of the country.

A course was taken to modernize the Iranian army. By the mid-1970s, arms purchases from the United States were absorbing $5-6 billion a year. Approximately the same amount in the second half of the 1960s were placed orders for weapons and military equipment in the UK, France and Italy. 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 announced 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 that, Tehran de facto established control over part of the water area of ​​the Shatg al-Arab river bordering Iraq, which led to the rupture of diplomatic relations with Iraq. In 1972, a conflict broke out between Iran and Iraq. Iran began to support the Kurdish opposition movement in Iraq. However, in 1975, Iranian-Iraqi relations were normalized, and Tehran stopped providing assistance to the Kurds. The US and Britain, considering Iran an ally, encouraged the Shah's government to play a leading role in the Persian Gulf.

Although the Carter administration did not approve of the repressive policy of the Shah inside the country, Washington valued partnership with Tehran, especially after the threat of the use of "oil weapons" by the Arab countries arose. Iran cooperated with the US and Western European countries to stabilize 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, a conservative way of life, a mentality based on Islamic values. Westernization was accompanied by the arbitrariness of the authorities, corruption, a structural break in the economy, and a deterioration in the material situation of the population. This increased dissatisfaction. In 1978, a critical mass of anti-monarchist sentiments accumulated in the country. Spontaneous rallies and demonstrations began to take place everywhere. To suppress the speeches, they tried to use the forces of the police, special services and the army. Rumors about the torture and murder of arrested activists of anti-Shah speeches 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, the Tehran radio, captured by the rebels, announced the victory of the Islamic revolution in Iran. On January 16, 1979, the Shah, accompanied by his 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 colleague 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 broke into the US embassy in Tehran and took the American diplomats who were there as hostages. The protesters demanded "from Washington to extradite the Shah, who was in the United States, to Iran. Their demands were supported by the Iranian authorities. on the import of Iranian oil and announced the freezing of Iranian assets (about 12 billion dollars) in American banks.In May 1980, the countries of the European Community joined the sanctions against Iran.

The events in Tehran gave rise to a second "oil shock" associated with fears about a possible cessation of Iranian oil exports. Oil prices soared from $12-13 per barrel in 1974 to $36 and even $45 on the free market in 1980. countries - until 1982

The international situation has become even more tense after 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'état 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 proclaimed the Republic of Afghanistan. The new regime was soon recognized by the world community. Moscow greeted the coup with approval, since M. Daoud had long been known in the USSR, holding the post of 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 increased 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 repayments were deferred and new promises were made. Despite Daoud's gradual departure from the orientation towards the USSR, the USSR was three times superior to the United States in terms of the amount 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), helping to unite 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'état. 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 Revolutionary Council, headed by Nur Mohammed Taraki, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the PDPA, became the supreme body of power.

The USSR, followed by 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 proclaimed a priority in foreign policy DRA. In the first months after the April Revolution, a series of agreements and contracts was concluded between the USSR and the DRA in all areas of socio-economic, cultural and military-political cooperation, numerous advisers from the USSR arrived in the country. The semi-allied nature of Soviet-Afghan relations was secured by the Treaty of Friendship, Good Neighborliness and Cooperation for a period of 20 years, signed by N. M. Taraki and L. I. Brezhnev on December 5, 1978 in Moscow. The treaty provided for cooperation between the parties in the military field, but did not specifically stipulate the possibility of deploying the armed forces of one side on the territory of the other.

However, a split soon occurred in the PDPA itself, as a result of which Hafizullah Amin came to power. Socio-economic reforms, carried out in the country by force and ill-conceived, as well as repressions, 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. The provincial authorities formed their own armed detachments capable of resisting the government army. By the end of 1979, the anti-government opposition, speaking under traditionalist Islamic slogans, controlled 18 of Afghanistan's 26 provinces. 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 the implementation of socialist transformations in the country.

Capture of Kabul

The intervention of the USSR in Afghan affairs met with condemnation. He was especially sharply criticized by the United States, China and the countries of Western Europe. Moscow was condemned by the leaders of the leading Western European communist parties.

The most serious consequence of the Afghan events was the worsening of the international situation as a whole. The US is beginning to suspect that the Soviet Union is preparing to break into the Persian Gulf region in order to establish control over its oil resources. Six days after the beginning of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, on January 3, 1980, President John Carter sent an appeal to the Senate with a request to withdraw from ratification the SALT II treaty signed in Vienna, which as a result was never ratified. At the same time, the American administration officially announced that it would remain within the limits agreed in Vienna if the Soviet Union followed suit. The severity of the conflict was slightly smoothed out, but the détente came to an end. Tension began to increase.

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 resort to the use of armed force. In accordance with the "Carter Doctrine", the attempts of any power to establish its control over the Persian Gulf region were declared in advance by the American leadership an encroachment on important US interests. Washington has made clear its intention to "oppose 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). The 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.

In response to the Afghan events, Washington made changes in its approach to the military-political issues of world politics. Secret Presidential Directive No. 59 of July 25, 1980 outlined the main provisions of the "new nuclear strategy" of the United States. 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 to become key element"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 idea of ​​the intentions of the opposite side. The American administration believed that the invasion of Afghanistan meant Moscow's choice in favor of a global confrontation. The Soviet leadership was confident that the Afghan events, which, from its point of view, were of purely secondary, regional significance, served for Washington only as a pretext for resuming the global arms race, to which it had allegedly always been secretly striving.

Among the NATO countries there was no unity of assessments. Western European countries did not consider Moscow's intervention in Afghanistan an event of world significance. Detente was more important to them than to the United States. Understanding this, J. Carter constantly warned the European allies against the "erroneous belief in detente" and attempts to maintain constructive relations with Moscow. The states of Western Europe did not want to join the American sanctions against the USSR. In 1980, when the United States boycotted the Moscow Olympics, only Germany and Norway followed suit among European countries. But in the field of military-strategic relations, Western Europe continued to follow the US line.

Military conflict in Vietnam

As the aggression escalated, American regular units were increasingly drawn into hostilities. Any disguise and talk that the Americans allegedly help the Saigon authorities only with "advice" and "advisors" 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 unprecedented scale, nor the use of chemical weapons of warfare on large areas, nor the brutal bombardment broke the resistance of the South Vietnamese patriots. By the end of 1968, according to official American data, more than 30,000 American soldiers and officers were killed and about 200,000 wounded in South Vietnam.

Armed conflict in Vietnam

These tactics of US imperialism stemmed from the "new policy" of the US in Asia, outlined by President Nixon in July 1969. He promised the American public that Washington would not make any new "commitments" in Asia, that American soldiers would not be used to put down "internal rebellions" and that "the Asians would take care of their own affairs." With regard to the Vietnam War, the "new policy" meant the increase in the number, reorganization and modernization of the military-political machine of the Saigon regime, which assumed the main burden of the war with the South Vietnamese patriots. The US provided air and artillery cover for the Saigon troops, reducing US ground forces and thereby reducing their losses.

Sources and links

interpretive.ru - National Historical Encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

uchebnik-online.com – Tutorials online

sbiblio.com - Library of educational and scientific literature

cosmomfk.ru - Bitter project

rosbo.ru – Business education in Russia

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

usagressor.ru - American aggression

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

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

Cheat sheet on conflictology Kuzmina Tatyana Vladimirovna

THE CONCEPT OF ESCALATION OF THE CONFLICT

THE CONCEPT OF ESCALATION OF THE CONFLICT

Escalation(from lat. scala - ladder) - this is the most intense emotional background and rapidly developing stage of conflict interaction.

Signs of escalation in conflict interaction

1. The cognitive or rational component decreases in the actions and behavior of the participants.

2. A negative assessment of each other comes to the fore in the interpersonal relations of the warring parties, perception excludes the integral content, emphasizing only the negative features of the opponent.

3. Due to the decrease in the management of the situation, the interaction increases emotional stress the participants in the conflict.

4. The dominance of subjective attacks and criticism of the opponent's personality traits instead of arguments and arguments in favor of supported interests.

At the stage of escalation, the main contradiction may no longer be the goals and interests of the subjects of conflict interaction, but personal contradictions. In this regard, other interests of the parties are manifested, which aggravate the atmosphere of the conflict. Any interests during escalation are maximally polarized, the participants completely reject the interests of the opposite side. For an increase in aggressiveness at this stage, there may be a loss of the true original subject of the contradiction. Therefore, the conflict situation ceases to depend on the reasons that prompted the participants to the conflict, and can develop even after a decrease in the value and significance of the original subject of the contradiction.

Escalation has the property of increasing the temporal and spatial characteristics of the conflict. The contradictions of the participants are becoming wider and deeper, the reasons for the collision are becoming more. The phase of conflict escalation is the most dangerous stage of the entire conflict situation, since it is at this time that an initially interpersonal conflict can develop into an intergroup one. This, in turn, leads to a variety of means used at the stage of open conflict.

Escalation has external and internal mechanisms that intensify the conflict. External mechanisms escalation lies in the ways and strategies of behavior of the warring parties. When behavioral actions coincide, the conflict is more intense, since the participants achieve different goals and interests in approximately equal ways.

Internal mechanisms escalations are based on the capabilities of the human psyche and brain. Features of the character of individuals, personal and social attitudes of participants in a conflict situation affect the reaction and functioning of a person in conditions of emotional tension and potential danger.

From the book Business Psychology author Morozov Alexander Vladimirovich

Lecture 22

From the book Workshop on Conflictology author Emelyanov Stanislav Mikhailovich

The concept of intrapersonal conflict An intrapersonal conflict is a conflict within the mental world of a person, which is a clash of its oppositely directed motives (needs, interests, values, goals, ideals). intrapersonal

From the book Social Psychology: Lecture Notes author

The concept of interpersonal conflict and its features A strict definition of interpersonal conflict, apparently, cannot be given. But when we talk about such a conflict, we immediately see a picture of a confrontation between two people based on a collision of opposites.

From the book Social Psychology author Melnikova Nadezhda Anatolyevna

LECTURE No. 9

From the book Psychology of Personality author Guseva Tamara Ivanovna

21. The concept and typology of social conflict Conflict is an open clash of opposing positions. At the verbal level, conflict manifests itself most often in a dispute.

From the book Labor Psychology: Lecture Notes the author Prusova N V

29. The concept of conflict The word "conflict" means a collision. The causes of collisions can be a variety of problems in our lives. The conflict is essentially one of the types of social interaction, the subjects and participants of which are individual individuals,

From the book Psychology of Personality: Lecture Notes author Guseva Tamara Ivanovna

1. The concept of conflict Currently, there is an independent branch of labor psychology that studies labor conflict as a constituent element of group dynamics. Conflict is understood as the emergence of intractable contradictions, a clash

From the book Labor Psychology the author Prusova N V

LECTURE No. 17. The concept of conflict The word "conflict" (from Latin confliktus) means a clash (of parties, opinions, forces). The causes of collisions can be a variety of problems in our lives. For example, a conflict over material resources, over values ​​and the most important life

From the book Conflict Management author Sheinov Viktor Pavlovich

22. The concept of conflict. Psychological tension. Types of conflict At the moment, there is an independent branch of labor psychology that studies labor conflict as a constituent element of group dynamics. Conflict refers to a clash of interests

From the book Free waking dream. New therapeutic approach by Rome Georges

Conflict Escalation Models The term escalation has two closely related meanings. On the one hand, it can mean the use of increasingly harsh tactics, when the parties to the conflict put more and more pressure on each other. On the other hand, this term can mean strengthening

From the book Cheat Sheet on Conflictology author Kuzmina Tatyana Vladimirovna

Scheme of conflict escalation in a team But most often not responding to a conflict is like leaving smoldering coals in an empty house: a fire, of course, may not happen, but if it happens ... In general, the analogy between a conflict and a fire is deeper: 1) and that and another

From the book Conflictology author Ovsyannikova Elena Alexandrovna

Escalation function Within the framework of one scenario, the repetition of the same symbolic theme through a chain of images linked by one or more general characteristics, may be a way of preparing a meeting with a certain final chain exclusively

From the author's book

STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE CONFLICT AT THE ESCALATION STAGE Conflict escalation begins at the stage of the first incident or opposing action and ends at the stage of transition to the end of the conflict in the overall structure of the conflict situation. Escalation depending on

From the author's book

THE CONCEPT AND FUNCTIONS OF SOCIAL CONFLICT Social conflict is a conflict of large social groups that has arisen on the basis of social contradiction. In the modern world, there is an aggravation and increase in the number of social contradictions, which leads to an increase in