# Influence of asymmetrical military confrontation on market structure. From the Behavioral point of view by Semiotic approach

Georgi Hristov

In this work I look how the conflicts influence on the market structure and its peculiar communication. At the same time is appraised the semiotic substance and power of the signs for the interpretation of a coercive changing economic reality. In the specific aspects of examination are included typical moments of military confrontation in Ukraine and in the territories, where Islamic State has activity. Some observations of the wars in ex-Yugoslavia from the 90s are also included.

© Georgi Hristov, 2017


ISBN 978-5-4485-0163-0

Created with Ridero smart publishing system

## Abstract

INFLUENCE OF ASYMMETRICAL MILITARY CONFRONTATION ON MARKET STRUCTURE FROM THE BEHAVIORAL POINT OF VIEW BY SEMIOTIC APPROACH


In this work I look for an answer of the question how the conflicts in the different regions of the world influence on the market structure and its peculiar communication. At the same time is appraised the semiotic substance and power of the signs for the interpretation of a coercive changing economic reality. In the specific aspects of examination are included typical moments of military confrontation in Ukraine and in the territories, where Islamic State has activity. Some observations of the wars which took place in ex-Yugoslavia from the 90s of the XX century are also included.


AUTOR: GEORGI HRISTOV, MA, MSC

## Main Text

The simplest attempt for classification of the military conflicts would divide them into two characteristic types: more likely political (i.e. to impose a specific model of polity, political regime, ideological domination or some form of dictatorship…), or rather economical (for seizing and redistributing of markets, of strategic logistic locations or areas rich in raw materials and resources…). Most often the questions circle around clarifications who against who, where, with what ways and what purposes it gives one (or several) military conflicts and in the matter of this circle begins the upgrading – for the motives, interests, the “aggressor” and the “aggrieved party” are defined,… inevitably some conclusions are made for the ratio justice/injustice etc… – this provides an incentive for conversations, which are too often emotional and make an endless subjective spiral. If however we set aside these wastefull possibilites we will see that the memorable phrase of John E. Stenbeck Jr., defines the things in a specific, determined way, that regardless of what we are told, we must know, that it is about money.

The shooting of Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo is most often accepted as the beginning of the todays age, looked at as a historical category. Only about 20 years later, thinking about the social philosophy John Maynard Keynes writes: “…Moreover, dangerous human proclivities can be canalised into comparatively harmless channels by the existence of opportunities for money-making and private wealth, which, if they cannot be satisfied in this way, may find their outlet in cruelty, the reckless pursuit of personal power and authority, and other forms of self-aggrandisement…” [1] Unfortunately, in the real world, these two lines often fuse into one, also most often concealed behind some specious and relatively acceptable for the democratic community context. In his classical work “A Study of War” from 1942 the American political scientist and researcher of international relations Philip Quincy Wright brings out the convincing and statistically confirmed correlation when comparing the trends towards democratization during peace, and also the opposite trend towards democracy rejection during war times. [2] According to the autor this correlation confirms that rather the peace engenders democracy than the democracy to engender the peace. Certainly in the view for every contemporary military conflict a democracy is involved like the tendencies, especially after the end of the “Cold War”, are in a direction of a sharp rise of the uncertainty in every one of them. In parallel with that, we constantly observe an increase of the asymmetry in the modern military confrontations. The asymmetry in the international relationships can be defined as a lack of sameness between the entities as well as in their resources, status and strategies. In this relation NATO’s and USA’s leaderships in the last years promote more and more the necessity of apprehending new methods for warfare, because the traditional conventional war, at this moment is interpreted as something left completely in the past. Mr. Brian Colwell has described very accurately the separate elements:


A great portion of the contemporary international relationships are becoming more asymmetrical and depend on the relationships between too many different individuals, like countries, transnational corporations, religious communites, secret financial conglomerats or not numerous, but effective and brutal teroristic units… From the paradox of the relations between them, appears the weak balance between “the power of the weak” and “the weakness of the strong”.


Nevertheless, the concentrated localization of the conflicts, the asymmetry in power, resources and propaganda, and also the emotionally ideological (most often in the media) color, cant cover the linear logic of the preconditions, which interpreted in whatever way still stay mostly as economic phenomena. The arms export remains an indicative element of this industry. But the market is a one whole. It is well shown in the opposite dependence on exports of the global powers, as a part of the intensity of military relations among the basic geopolitical units.


The political aspects turn up to be only complicated tools, something like euphemism in the global text of the power approach. Rostislav Ishchenko [3] says in an interview: “Whatever people say, in reality the crysis in Ukraine is a part of the overall global crysis, a part of the confrontation between USA and Russia. … This is a part of the reason for their games in Aphganistan, Georgia, Syria, and now in Ukraine. The things that happen in Ukraine are a confrontation between USA and Russia. Everything else is just small conflicts.” [4] The connection is gradually getting clearer and is not illogical at all for the educated part of the audience, regardles of the skills and preparedness of the main contractors. The purely financial interests regarding mainly the markets redistributions and preemtion of resources are visualized by implication, from a geopolitical to a local level.


In our times the market is usually interpreted as a main norm of the generally recognized value systems in the developed societies. From here the attention is focusing on the process of exchange, as its essential element. We can immediately notice the base connection which is either rending or transforming beyond recognition in the military confrontation, regardless if we look at it as a global (geopolitical) plan or on a local level. “To get a good or money that do not belong to you has been possible even in then, with military actions – you kill, enslave and grab.” [5] This thought of the professor Neviana Krysteva, put as an antithesis of the market relations, is referring to a distant past time period, but is an applicable alternative at every time, exactly as a form of direct elimination of the exchange from the market structure. In this way in the zones of military confrontations the connections of the market relations are broken, the whole economic structure is destroyed and drastically changed; the influence on the market structure and the communication with the consumers is only an aspect of the overall collapse of the social system, build on the civilizations norms, equilibrium relations and generally accepted values.


Looking into the Ukrainian crisis or in what is happening on the territory, controlled by the Islamic State obvious, at least at first look, differences some unexpected similarities can be distinct. In Ukraine, the war is determined as too foggy ethnic (can even be said – linguistically) opposition, on the boarders of an area full of almost only Slavonic citizens, without any hint for religious or ideological separation. This is one traditional, orthodox, Christian community. Not by chance the commentators are not giving a meaning anywhere to the Tatar minority, or to the few Muslim mercenaries (mainly from Chechnya and Dagestan), which are taking part in the fights only because this is their profession. In the territories in Syria and Iraq, controlled by the armies of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the announced target is the making of the “Islamic Caliphate”. [6] The conflict is between the close ethnic communities, from the same religion, derived mainly by their appurtenance to some of two of their biggest differences of the Islam— Sunnites against Shiites (and only after that – against the other “nonbelievers”).

The culture factors and more specifically the subcultural ones have a really strong pressure in shaping of the local marketing and social-economic characteristics. This is really easily visible at the ISIL’s domain. The laws of the applied strict Sharia [7] absolutely forbids the smoking and alcohol (the traditional consummation in Ukraine is exactly the opposite), as well as in the wearing of any secular cloths, different than the ones that are religiously accepted. However, these characteristics are not directly connected with the military actions. In the other countries which accepted Sharia the situation is similar. The difference is in the “rate”. They are applied in the ISIL zones with maximum precision and under the threat of cruel physical or even death penalties. The purpose of the extremities is a form of symbolism, needed by the power structures, which in this way formulate and send their unequivocal, semantically laden message to the internal and external factors (regardless if they are enemies or not). Long ago, the accepted setting is that the public domination is accepted by the society, when it guarantees exact goods to the other participants in the system – an example is the security and the favorable economic conditions and beside that is solidly supported from ideological, religious and other values, which are maximally common. [8] The very images of the leaders are ideological and media built as a whole, according to the respectively informational war, which they move and simultaneously serve. The leaders are a multilevel message (with undisputed world media rating and a high level of recognition), which symbolism is shaky (according to its sociocultural purpose) in range of extreme meanings: between a real individual, through an intriguing mystery with a hint for unreal personal qualities, to a generalized image-function, structured so that to be a subject (if necessary) in the respective group of easy enough and fast mythologization. The characteristics of the socio-cultural factors directly influence and define to a big degree the political structure with the matching up and lawful elements. As long as in the normal functioning developed democratic societies the purpose of the government regulation and of the legal economic frame, is at all focused on the protection of interests of the society, the consumers and the developers, then in the zones of military confrontations the reality is completely different.