PHILOSOPHY OF WAR AND PEACE : IN SEARCH OF NEW EUROPEAN SECURITY STRATEGY

Introduction. The contemporary European social and cultural landscape feels the pressure of security challenges. It is true, that Europe has a strategy of overcoming the possible challenges, but it has sense to review ones strategy abilities to be effective at the face of new manifestations of aggression. Methodology. The authors use heuristic philosophical methodology which can make mentioned strategy more holistic having clear vision of the essence of war and peace phenomena. The research is going to perform precious conceptualization of the strategy contours initiated at the previous publications of O. Bazaluk. Originality. Authors defined the series “fatal” mistakes of the European Security Strategy and formulated the list of objectives of the revised security strategy. Conclusions. Five key objectives of perspective European Security Strategy were formulated. The first objective should include the complex measures for the identification, registration and organization of the system of preventive work with mentalities, in which the pathologies in the structure and function of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness are clearly expressed that refract the active principle (as natural force) in aggressive manifestations. The second one should include the complex measures ensuring control over the direction of the physicochemical, predisposing, provoking and supporting factors of the external environment that have a direct impact on the manifestations of a mental space in ontogeny. The third objective should include the complex measures of prediction and solution of international (interstate) conflicts. The fourth objective of the security strategy should be aimed at eliminating the cause of war. The fifth objective should provide the complex measures involving the peaceful extension of comfortable conditions for the full realization of its internal creative potentials by a mental space.


Introduction
The contemporary European social and cultural landscape feels the pressure of security challenges.There is need to find an answer on the question: does European Security Strategy takes into account the essential nature of war and peace social phenomena and fits the contemporary challenges?
The European Security Strategy was adopted in December 2003 and became a new stage in the development of the foreign and security policies of the European Union.As follows from the text adopted by the European Parliament, the fundamental idea of the European Strategy is a secure Europe in a better world [1].In 2003, the authors of the European Security Strategy prescribed: "Large-scale aggression against any member state is now improbable" [1].In the strategy, the following top threats to European security were identified as: Terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, state failure, and organized crime.Based on the identified threats, the authors have prescribed the following strategic objectives [1]: -Addressing the threats (terrorism, proliferation, regional conflicts, etc.).
-Building security in our neighbourhood (Balkans, Mediterranean, Southern Caucasus, Middle East).
-An international order based on effective multilateralism (international law, key institutions, regional organizations, rule-based international order).
Five years later, in December 2008, Javier Solana introduced the prepared report on the implementation of the European security strategy, together with the European Commission, to the European Council: "Providing Security in a Changing World."In the report, the authors have tried to clarify the main threats to European security, because the events clearly were not following the scenario of the European Security Strategy of 2003.It became apparent that the European Security Strategy was not able to predict the actual course of events.In 2008, the main threats to the security of Europe were considered as: Proliferation of weapons of mass de-struction, terrorism and organized crime, cyber security, energy security, and climate change [19].
Based on the adjusted list of the global challenges and top threats, the following ways to reach stability in Europe and beyond were recommended [19]: -Enlargement of the European Union: Turkey, the Western Balkans.
-Combat illicit accumulation and trafficking of SALW and their ammunition, cluster munitions, and landmines.
A lot of researches underlined, the in the European Security Strategy of 2008 as a high-level document, there were too many miscalculations.The main ones are the following: 1) the enlargement of the European Union by the limitrophe states; 2) the failures concerning the development and behavior of the Russian Federation in the international arena; 3) the assumption of the war in Ukraine; 4) the attitudes towards refugees.All the events were predicted neither in the edition of 2003 nor of 2008 by the European Security Strategy, although, as we shall see below, they were obvious and easily calculated [5, p. 22].
From 2015, the question raised by the social practice was formulated in a following way: "Is current strategy still effective in 2017?".At our article authors also raises the following question: "Does strategy takes into account the nature of war and peace social phenomena?".It looks productive to use the approaches of social and political philosophy trying to find the contours of new strategy of European security.
The research objective is to define new approaches which could make European security strategy adequate to contemporary geopolitical challenges.This aim can be achieved using heuristic philosophical methodology which can make mentioned strategy more holistic having clear vision of the essence of war and peace phenomena.The research is going to perform precious conceptualization of the strategy contours initiated at the previous publications [4; 5].

Statement of basic material
First of all, at the article authors are going to ex-plicate the main ideas of current security strategy as well as perform the historical and philosophical analyze of the essence of war and peace concepts.It looks fruitful to reformulate the key principles of European security strategy by extrapolating the ideas of famous philosophers of the modern European cultural landscape.It would let to formulate the effective response on the security threats which take place last years in Europe.
The history of European security strategy transformation demonstrates that 2015 is a year of reevaluation of real possibilities of existing strategy to overcome the security challenges.On June 9 2015, the European Parliament issued the briefing: "Towards a new European security strategy?Assessing the impact of changes in the global security environment" [24].In the briefing, the brief presentation of the results of analytical work in the field of European security, conducted by three leading international security institutes in Europe: Chatham House in London, the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, was presented.The research focused on the objective analysis of the achievements and shortcomings of the past two versions of the European Security Strategy, as well as [24]: -The changes of the nature of conflicts (hybrid conflicts; leveling the battlefields); unresolved territorial disputes and frozen conflicts; ideological and religious conflicts.
-New military technologies and strategies: explosive weaponry in highly populated areas; guided missiles, UAVs and armed drones; the use of weapons of mass destruction.
-The growth in digital technologies: cyber dependencies and the Internet; cyber technologies for war, targeting and attack; cyber vulnerabilities of the critical infrastructure.
-Strategic threats due to climate change.
-The Middle East and North Africa.
-Western Balkan security issues.
-Evolution of strategic alliances: the evolution of US strategic interest; BRICS, regional powers in Asia and Latin America.
At the same time, the security strategy didn't take into account the high level of challenges potentially produced by Russian Federation.The hybrid nature of security challenges is strengthened by developed technologies of misinformation at the Internet and as well as by mobility turn at contemporary society [9; 21; 22].It resonates with the paradigmal changes at geopolitics: it started being comprehended not form the methodological positions of materialist, but form the standpoint of textual discoursive practices [10, p. 4].We also understand that postsoviet social-cultural space is a fruitful territory for realization of hybridity-oriented geopolitical scenarios [12, p. 178-179].
The USSR collapse initiated the wide transformations of geopolitical strategies in Europe and the aggressive Russian politics were underestimated.At the beginning of the 21st century, taking advantage of the collapse of the USSR and the weakness of the legal successor of the Soviet Union -the Russian Federation -the European Union rushed to expand the borders of its world of historical ideas, taking into its membership the limitrophe states.There was the so-called "fifth» enlargement of the European Union by the countries of the Eastern bloc.
At the same time, powerful European countries (the UK, Germany and France) have established close economic relations with the Russian Federation.Especially after Vladimir Putin came to power, European politicians, businessmen, public figures and scientists, charmed by the natural resources of Russia and the idea of turning Russia into a European state (the idea of Paneuropean Union), opened the world of their achievements and developments to the Russians [5, p. 155-156].
It is easy to find that breaking all the canons of political science, in the period of 2000-2013 the European countries have made every effort to restore the political power of its direct competitorthe Russian Federation.Even the USA, which is considered the centre of the development of political science, took an active part in this recovery.
Why, in respect of the Russian Federation, did European countries act contrary to history, logic, theory and practice?The previous researches let us say that there are several causes: political corruption; lack of understanding of the ontology of war and peace; the predominance of national interests over global (universal); and miscalculations in the European Security Strategy [4; 5].
The complete rethink of the role of the Russian Federation in the history of Europe and the world by the ruling Russian elite took place in the period between the two wars of conquest against Georgia and Ukraine.The world of historical ideas of the Russian Federation from self-isolation proceeded to open external aggression -"the liberation of Europe" and the expansion of the borders of the "Russian world."The European security system is now faced with a new challenge -the aggressive policy of Putin's totalitarian regime.The reincarnation of the Russian Federation from a space-victim (during the reign of Boris Yeltsin) to a space-aggressor (during the reign of Vladimir Putin), which from 2014 to the present time is the primary destructive and destabilizing force in Europe and in the world, is the roughest and, even, most criminal, miscalculation in the European Security Strategy [5, p. 155].But we all have to take into account saying about the security strategy, that inter-state wars and wars of territorial conquest served a critical role in enabling the development of strong and capable government institutions in Europe [7, p. 4].
From the point of view of the theory of war and peace, the actions of the European politicians at the beginning of the 21st century are perceived as the intentional destruction of the conditions of a regulatory compromise in Europe, which was established after the collapse of the Soviet Union.How else can we explain the contradictory nature of the actions: on the one hand, the European Union member states in the period of 2000-2013 intentionally restored the Russian Federation as a space-aggressor, investing billions and helping to develop the latest technologies, including the military, while, on the other hand in the same period, the European Union expanded the borders of its world of historical ideas through the limitrophe states, which were a little over 10 years ago in the world of historical ideas of Russia (the former USSR)?
The complete absence of logical behavior in European politics was it was necessary either to isolate Russia, or to invest billions not in the economy of Russia but in the economy of the limitrophe states, by helping them to rise to the level of the economies of European Union countries, or else to restore Russia, but not to provoke it by the expansion of borders through the limitrophe states that Russia always intended to have [5, p. 161].
All these facts demonstrate that there is a lack of understanding of the essence of war and peace phenomena at contemporary European mentality.At the result, European Security Strategy could not provide effective mechanisms of counter-strategy for geopolitical aggression at the beginning of the 21st century.Let's make a brief explication of philosopher's ideas according the essence of war and peace phenomena.We underline that it would help to make a heuristic revision of key approaches of European Security Strategy making it corresponding to new challenges.Also we want to underline that mentioned explication is going to demonstrate the historical evolution of Plato's ideas concerning war and peace phenomena (Plato's line at the authors theory of war and peace) starting form the Stoicism philosophical heritage.
The representatives of Stoicism -a philosophical school, which was founded in Athens around 300 BC, interpreted, opposing Democritus' (Thucydides) line, the understanding of the problem of war and peace in the theories of international relations.Developing the ideas of Plato, the Stoics were speculating on a "unified world state" formed and existing according to universal reason.The Stoics put the idea of human freedom at a new level of understanding at the scale of the Earth, which was first expressed by Socrates and Diogenes.The ideology of global or cosmopolitan citizenship developed by the Stoics meant an important stage in the development of Greek thought.From comprehension of the origin, development and relationship closed autonomous poleis, the ancient Greek philosophers moved to comprehension of the moral unity of the human race.A century later, the idea of cosmopolitanism of the Stoics became the basis of a Christian worldview concerning the global unity of people created in God's image and likeness.St. Augustine in his treatise "The City of God" (De Civitate Dei in Latin), written in 413-427, formulated the two important ideas for our research [5, p. 22-23].
First, Augustine introduced the history of humanity as the coexistence of the Heavenly City (lat.Dei ciuitas) and the Earthly City (lat.Terrena ciuitas).In book 11, chapter 1, he wrote: "I will endeavor to treat of the origin, and progress, and deserved destinies of the two cities (the earthly and the heavenly, to wit), which, as we said, are in this present world commingled, and, as it were, entangled together" [20,1887].Augustine's idea remained relevant for more than a thousand years (up to the Renaissance) and was laid down as the basis of the confrontation between the political doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church and the secular power.Guided by Augustine's idea, the fathers of the Ro-man Catholic Church with war and peace tried to impose a uniform European political system -the dominance of "the City of God."In the 11 th century, Pope Gregory VII almost succeeded to do it.However, as a result of the bloody and centuries-long conflict, the Earthly City defended its right to exist after all.In the 13 th century, in the works of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Renaissance of Aristotle's political ideas and the recognition of the rights of states and political communities for the autonomous existence took place [3].The reality of political life took precedence over the utopia of the Heavenly City.
Augustine's second idea is related to the understanding of the importance of a just kingdom that was implied in the concept of "just war."In book 4, chapter 15, Augustine wrote: "…to carry on war and extend a kingdom over wholly subdued nations seems to bad men to be felicity, to good men necessity" [20].Alternatively, in book 19, chapter 7, Augustine formulated the same idea as follows: "…the wise man will wage just wars.As if he would not all the rather lament the necessity of just wars, if he remembers that he is a man; for if they were not just he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered from all wars" [20].Augustine's ideas highlighted by us contributed to the further development of theoretical understanding of the problem of war and peace in international relations.We emphasise that both ideas Augustine deduced from the basic for Plato's line of philosophising postulate about a single beginning (creation) of the universe.Following Plotinus, Augustine improved Plato's idea of the unity of the world: "…the one God, the author of this universe, who is not only above every body, being incorporeal, but also above all souls, being incorruptible -our principle, our light, our good" [20].
Plato's line in comprehension of the problem of war and peace in the theories of international relations was most clearly manifested at the beginning of the 16th century when it was directly opposed to Democritus' (Thucydides) line, which was represented at the time in the works of Niccolò Machiavelli.Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus, and later in Francisco de Vitoria, Francisco Suárez, Hugo Grotius, Emeric Crucé, abbé de Saint-Pierre, John Locke and some other researchers laid the foundations of the ethical and legal (idealistic) paradigm, which is currently represented in the theories of international relations by the theories of liberalism and neoliberalism.In this paradigm, the idea of continuity of policy and morality, the idea of the possibility of improving reality, and the principle of duty are defended.Each of the scientists mentioned above pays close attention to the problem of war and peace.For example, Erasmus, in the book «The Complaint of Peace», published in 1517, gives the following definition of peace and war: «Now, if I, whose name is Peace, am a personage glorified by the united praise of God and man, as the fountain, the parent, the nurse, the patroness, the guardian of every blessing which either heaven or earth can bestow; if without me nothing is flourishing, nothing safe, nothing pure or holy, nothing pleasant to mortals, or grateful to the Supreme Being; if, on the contrary, war is one vast ocean, rushing on mankind, of all the united plagues and pestilences in nature; if, at its deadly approach, every blossom of happiness is instantly blasted, everything that was improving gradually degenerates and dwindles away to nothing, everything that was firmly supported totters on its foundation, everything that was formed for long duration comes to a speedy end, and everything that was sweet by nature is turned into bitterness» [11].
In the treatise «The three books of the Law of War and Peace», published in 1625, following the basic ideas of Desiderius Erasmus concerning the establishment of a peaceful world order, the elimination of forces from the international order and careful regulation of the legality of the war, Hugo Grotius systematized international law and prescribed the legal basis of the war, which formed the basis of international law in the modern period.In 1713, abbé de Saint-Pierre proposed the project of «perpetual peace.»In 1795, a treatise, «Perpetual Peace», by Immanuel Kant was published, which can be regarded as the main work among «small treatises» on the issues of philosophy of history and politics, published in the years 1784-1798 [14].
The creators of the American democracy made a significant contribution to the comprehension of war and peace in international relations.For example, Thomas Jefferson in the United States Declaration of Independence, which was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4 1776, wrote: «We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are insti-tuted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness» [23].Charles-Louis de Montesquieu, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and others defended the idea that the law was able only to stop the violence, but not eradicate it; that the destinies of independence of states, and the Republican system, depended only on the moral development of people [5, p. 26-27].
The makers of the French Revolution of 1789, their ideas and the practical realization of those ideas narrowed the understanding of war and peace in the lines of Plato and Democritus (Thucydides).The ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Charles-Louis de Montesquieu from the field of philosophical discussions were embodied in daily life, for example, the changes which have taken place in the international legal status of the French people.A new revolutionary law that was adopted in that period in France rejected the sovereignty of the monarchs and recognized the sovereign people as a subject of international law, which exercised their will through representative institutions.The French of «subjects» of the state (sujet) became «citizens» (citoyen), which possessed equal rights to participate in the development of the nation and the state.
A new level of understanding of the problem of war and peace in international relations of Plato's line gave the works of German philosophers: Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Georg Wilhelm Hegel and some others.For example, Georg Wilhelm Hegel criticized the idea of «perpetual peace» and put the idea of war at a new level of understanding.In the third part, «Philosophy of Right», published in 1820, Hegel wrote: «War has the higher significance that, by its agency… the ethical health of peoples is preserved in their indifference to the stabilization of finite institutions; just as the blowing of the winds preserves the sea from the foulness which would be the result of a prolonged calm, so also corruption in nations would be the product of prolonged, let alone 'perpetual', peace» [13, p. 361].Hegel has enriched the idea of war and peace by a new approach that Gennady Novikov formulated as follows: «The world is immortal in the dialectics of life and death epochs, societies, civilizations; some of them die, producing others, making the further ascent to the knowledge of absolute spirit.The destiny of each nation is unique.In some periods, this or that nation is called upon to perform its mission, using violence, resorting to imperialism in relation to other peoples.Thus, the world's progress is carried out» [18].The understanding of the problem of war and peace in Plato's line greatly enriched the ideas expressed by the outstanding philosopher Henri Bergson in the last book «The Two Sources of Morality and Religion», published in 1932.In the final chapter of the book «Mechanics and mysticism», Bergson tried to convey the biological understanding of the war by human nature and human society.According to Bergson, natural society is the opposite of democracy.It is a monarchical or oligarchic regime [6].
To Plato's line, in the understanding of war and peace in international relations, one could include the fundamental research of Pierre Renouvin on this problem.Renouvin was a participant of the First World War.In April 1917, he lost his left arm, because of being wounded.Perhaps this is why in the research of Renouvin, one could observe not only realism but also the search for deeper meanings inherent in Plato's line of philosophising.In the book «Immediate Origins of the War», as well as in other studies, Renouvin researched the origins of war and came to comprehension that the development of international relations was caused by so-called «deep forces», to which he attributed: geographical conditions, demographic processes, economic and financial interests, the features of mass psychology, significant emotional flows.Renouvin focused on studying the role of the individual (the head of state, a political leader) in the history of war and peace and believed that emotions, the features of a mentality and the value orientations of a political leader were the important factors in the assessment of foreign manifestations of the nation and the state.Together with other prominent French historian and political scientist Jean-Baptiste Duroselle, they developed a typology of characters of political leaders, highlighting the most important, from their point of view, quality of an individual [4; 5].
In recent decades, the understanding of the problem of war and peace in the lines of Plato and Democritus (Thucydides) in international relations became closer.As we have said before, their division was initially conditional and artificial, because the subject of the study of war and peace in international relations is only the field of philosophising of Democritus' line.In the book "Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary.Debate", which was published in 1993, edited by David Baldwin, six key points were highlighted that made the theories of neorealism and neoliberalism in international relations closer (and, accordingly, their views on war and peace) [17].
We have only focused on the key, in our view, stages of the development.In the semantic space of philosophy, political science and sociology, apart from the authors mentioned above, the problem of war and peace was investigated by Francis Bacon, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Pitirim Sorokin, Vladimir Solovyov, Michel Foucault, Karl Popper, Henry Kissinger, Alvin Toffler, Samuel Huntington, Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, James D. Morrow, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Mary Kaldor, and many others.
The explication of the theoretical approaches from the history of philosophy can became a fruitful step for revision of European Security Strategy.The EU's policy on the enlargement process after the collapse of the Soviet Union was a "fatal" mistake in the European Security Strategy, not only because of the opposition to this enlargement from the Russian Federation.The problem lies in the rhizomein the plane of understanding of the difference between space-aggressors and space-victims, which include all the limitrophe states.A mental spaceaggressor is distinguished from the limitrophe state by the factors of the macro environment: demographic; economic; political; legal; socio-cultural; environmental and geographic; and technological.It is these factors when making significant decisions at the scale of Europe (and the world) ensure the autonomy and independence of the political position of a space-aggressor, and the indecision and ambivalence of the limitrophe policy.The domestic and foreign policy of the limitrophe states is influenced by space-aggressors, and this is their main difference.
The two fatal mistakes of European politicians that were found in the period from 1991 to 2013 by methods of geophilosophy as theory of war and peace, the third mistake is added which was made by the governments of leading European countries in the period from 2015 to the present time.Let us formulate this mistake as follows: placing the population, which espouses a completely different culture (the world of historical ideas) in a space of its world of historical ideas is equivalent to actualize the third cause of the endless localization of Earth's space (the third cause of war), when the sacramental worlds of historical ideas of the several mental spaces compete for the same locus, as a territory.It is like inciting a conflict intentionally between the national idea and alien culture, which at any moment can actualize nationalist sentiment and escalate into national pogroms, massacres, civil war, etc.The redrawing of borders in Europe, started by Russia on 27 February 2014, cannot be stopped in the short term.As the analysis of the preceding three large-scale redrawing of borders in Europe, this process continues for about 5-10 years.As a result of the revitalization process of endless localization, the primary problem facing European politicians is to not allow the lands of Europe to turn into "bloody lands."For this purpose, it is necessary to focus on the achievement of two main objectives: 1. Increase the efficiency of educational technologies, which on the one hand need to lay the foundation of worldview in the rising generations, i.e. stereotypes and a setting of peace, tolerance and good neighbourliness, on the other, identify mentalities that are apt to aggressive manifestations.
2. Eliminate the causes of the war and restore a regulatory compromise between the interests of the four leading European mental space-aggressors: Great Britain, Germany, Russia and France, as well as the interests of the United States, the limitrophe states, and other self-sufficient countries in Europe.
Saying about educational potential in overcoming of security challenges, we share the following approach of Serhiy Klepko: «For the holistic or integrated understanding of the culture of peace for the needs of education, the importance of philosophical knowledge of the nature and causes of modern wars, armed combat and non-military forms of confrontation, defense issues, particularly within the philosophy of education» [15, p. 47].In our view, any security strategy (both global and regional) should consist of a theoretical part and practical recommendations.It should be emphasized that it is not conservation, but namely maintenance of a regulatory compromise, because according to the first and second assertions of the theory, mental spaces and their manifestations are complicated nonlinearly and continuously.Therefore, to maintain a regulatory compromise in the conditions of a continuously and nonlinearly complicating mental space of the Earth and its manifestations, it is actually impossible.It can only be supported by predicting, and a timely response to changes in the rhizome of a mental space and its manifestations.
The theory of war and peace allows us to objectively identify the range of problems facing the security strategy.Indeed, endless localization of Earth's space cannot be stopped, because it is a natural process caused by the universal laws of evolution.However, the professionally written security strategy may well prevent the war as a way to extend the possibilities of a locus of civilization and keep the conditions of peace effectively.It follows that the security strategy should have specific objectives for the prevention of the causes of war and limit of the possibilities of aggressive manifestations on the part of any mental space at the scale of the Earth.
The theory of war and peace reveals the ways of the means by which it is possible to maintain a regulatory compromise in a mental space.Mainly, the ways and means are concentrated in educational technologies, the impact of which is precisely directed to the formation and maintenance of certain stereotypes and sets in a rhizome of mental space.The aggressive or peaceful direction of the manifestations of the active principle of a mental space in the material and virtual worlds depends mainly on the direction of the stereotypes and sets that are laid in a complicating mentality and mental space by educational technologies in the first twenty years of ontogenesis, as well as in the course of lifelong learning [5, p. 165].
Thus, the goal of any security strategy is a maintenance of a regulatory compromise between continuously and nonlinearly complicating loci of civilization; the objectives of the security strategy should be aimed at eliminating the causes of war and limiting the possibilities for aggressive manifestations on the part of any mental space-aggressor; the ways and means of the security strategy are concentrated on the potential of educational technologies.

Conclusions
As a conclusion we want to clarify the list of objectives of the European Security Strategy.From the theory of war and peace, as well as its basic assertions, it follows: The first objective of the security strategy should include the complex measures for the identification, registration and organization of the system of pre- ventive work with mentalities, in which the pathologies in the structure and function of the neural ensembles of subconsciousness and consciousness are clearly expressed that refract the active principle (as natural force) in aggressive manifestations.We know that, for objective reasons in each new generation of a mental space, there are about 1 percent of mentalities apt to manifestations of aggression.
No less a danger to society represented by mentalities formed under the influence of educational technologies by the stereotypes of aggression and aggressive sets.In this regard, it is necessary to develop the methodology for revealing not only those mentalities but also systems of education aimed at the formation of the stereotypes of aggression and aggressive sets in a mental space.The improvements of technologies, tactics and strategies of war, terrorism, organised crime, piracy, cybercrime, and many others are the manifestations of internal creative potentials of mentalities with the pathologies in the structure and functions of the brain, or with the stable stereotypes and sets of aggressiveness.
The second objective of the security strategy should include the complex measures ensuring control over the direction of the physicochemical, predisposing, provoking and supporting factors of the external environment that have a direct impact on the manifestations of a mental space in ontogeny.It is important to develop and use the methods that would allow: a) Identification of the physicochemical, predisposing, provoking and supporting factors of the external environment, aimed at the formation of the stereotypes of aggression and aggressive sets in a mental space.b) Effective influence on environmental factors, changing their direction from aggressive manifestations to the ethics of good neighbourliness and peace.
c) The efficient use of environmental factors for the formation of stereotypes of peace, collaboration and tolerance towards other cultures in a mental space.
The third objective of the security strategy should include the complex measures of prediction and solution of international (interstate) conflicts.The neglect of the third cause of the war turns into large-scale border changes of loci of civilization, which are often accompanied by massive loss of life and destruction.The security strategy should include the methods of de-actualization of a conflict and its subsequent decision.
The fourth objective of the security strategy should be aimed at eliminating the main cause of war and include: a) The methodology for assessing the relevance of the world of historical ideas in a locus of civilization.
b) The prediction of competition from other worlds of historical ideas and the threat of conflict.
c) The calculation of behaviours of a mental space in the case of de-actualization of the world of historical ideas.