Neurotechnologies in Geopolitics, Management, Economics during the Global crisis and hybrid Wars (Part 2) / Нейротехнологии в геополитике, управлении, экономике во время глобального кризиса и гибридных войн (часть 2, окончание)

Глущенко Валерий Владимирович ORCID: 0000-0003-1324-9326 доктор технических наук профессор, Центр проектной деятельности, Московский политехнический университет 107564, Россия, г. Москва, ул. Образцова, 9, оф. 1 Glushchenko Valeriy Vladimirovich Doctor of Technical Science Professor, Project Activity Center, Moscow Polytechnic University 107564, Russia, 1-Ya grazhdanskaya oblast', g. 1-Ya grazhdanskaya, ul. Obraztsova, 9, of. 1 glu-valery@yandex.ru Другие публикации этого автора

Along with the world order, there were changes in the composition of methods and tools for resolving military-political conflicts of states. These changes were associated with a change in technological patterns. Table 2 provides a systematic analysis of military-technical tools for resolving geopolitical conflicts, depending on the technological order.

Table No. 2. The system model of military-technical tools in geopolitics as a function of the sequence of technological orders

Source: developed by the author

To determine the specifics of the process of changing the world order in 2022, we will describe the historical sequence of the world orders that took place. In the process of such research, it is recommended to take into account that the description of the structure and features of the world order is one of the actual scientific problems of the theory and practice of international relations ^[29]. To describe the objective basis of the global crisis observed in 2022, we will conduct a retrospective analysis of the content of world orders. In such an analysis, the essence of the world order will be considered in its systemic connection with the technological order that existed during this period of time. Such a retrospective and, at the same time, systematic analysis allows us to describe the systemic relationship between a certain technological order and the world order existing in the same time period.

1. Communal world order. It existed from 5500 BC to 2000 BC. It reflects the process of formation of states. It was based on a technological order, which is absent in the well-known classification of orders ^{[30, pp. 3-29; 2, pp. 65-82]}.This technological order can be called the 1st technological mode, which is associated with the invention of the sail.

2. The princely-imperial world order existed from 2000 BC to the 17th century AD. It was based on the second and third technological orders. The basis of the second technical order is the invention of horse-drawn traction (2000 BC - 9th century AD). The basic power plant of the third technological order is the invention of windmills and water mills in the 9th century (9th century - 1770).

3. The imperial world order (existed from the Middle Ages to the beginning of the 20th century) was formed in the process of geopolitical competition and the relationship of several large multinational empires. This period of time includes three technical structures: the fourth technical structure (textile machines) in the period from 1770 to 1830; the fifth technical structure (steam engine) existed from 1830 to 1880; the sixth technological order (electric motor and internal combustion engine) existed in the period from 1880 to 1930.

4. The block world order was formed after the end of the Second World War based on its results. This world order covers two technological orders (technical order No. 7 – nuclear reactor and computers and technical order No. 8 - microprocessors (partially))

5. The next (fifth) world order can be defined as a unipolar world. Presumably existed from 1980 to 2020. Two technological orders correspond to this world order, namely mode No. 8 - microprocessors (partially) and technological order No. 9 (nano- and neuro-technologies, resource-saving technologies and others).

6. The sixth world order can presumably be called a "multipolar world". This world order will be based on the ninth technological order (nanotechnology, neurotechnology and others) and, possibly, subsequent technological orders.

A systematic, retrospective analysis of the relationship between the category "world order" and the category "technological order", carried out in this article, allows us to draw the following conclusion:

- the technological order is the basis, and the world order is a geopolitical superstructure over this technological order;

- due to the increasing pace of scientific and technological progress, there is an increasingly close systemic connection between the world order and the existing technological order in socio-economic development;

- the acute systemic geopolitical crisis observed in 2022 (including the COVID-19 pandemic and others) is probably determined by the process of formation of the ninth technological order and, at the same time, the sixth world order (multipolar world).

When describing the factors that can influence the formation of a new world order and determine the geopolitical status of the state, it should be borne in mind that the main vectors of development of the ninth technological order will be: intellectual technologies; information technologies; neurotechnologies; digitalization technologies; biotechnologies; resource-saving technologies; nanotechnology and others. When predicting the development of the technological basis and institutions of the new 6th world order, the provisions of the general theory of technological orders can be useful ^{[2, pp. 65-82]}.

When forecasting the geopolitical situation and the geopolitical status of the state, it is recommended to take into account the opinion of Zbigniew Brzezinski. This author believed that the driving forces of the geopolitical process (factors) in the 20th century are: the economic power of the state; the development of innovations in the state; the state ideology that encourages economic activity and innovation. These factors determine the country's geopolitical position and geopolitical status in the future world order.

It is predicted that the creation of new geopolitical poles is possible due to the influence of such factors: success in the development of the technological basis of the 9th technological order; the formation of new scientific, educational, financial, innovative, technological clusters (centers, nodes); the development of the national currency and/or cryptocurrency systems; the development of the production and logistics architecture of the economy; the availability of sufficient the number and well-armed army; effective international communications in the information space and much more.

In the process of changing the world order, it is possible to restructure the blocs of states and the states themselves. This restructuring is due to changes in relations in the field of technological power of states (including the development of innovations) ^{[31, p.6]}. It is believed that global innovation and technological competition will occur between: states; transnational technology platforms; clusters and other types of production and organizational architectures. An essential element of such competition will be the organizational culture of corporations, clusters, platforms, attractive to innovatively active people.

In the interests of increasing the effectiveness of managing the geopolitical risk of the state within the framework of neurogeopoliticology, a conceptual approach to such management can be recommended. A set of interconnected elements can be called a geopolitical risk management system. This system should solve the problem of controlling the level of geopolitical risk, keeping this risk within acceptable limits.

In the process of managing geopolitical risk, four levels of such risk can be distinguished: ordinary geopolitical risk; acceptable geopolitical risk; critical geopolitical risk; catastrophic geopolitical risk of the state. The usual geopolitical risk exists if the state has a sufficiently comfortable international situation and there is a real prospect of its preserving this situation in the future. An acceptable geopolitical risk of a State occurs when a State has certain contradictions with individual states or the prospect of an interstate conflict. The critical geopolitical risk of a state occurs in cases of: an acute economic conflict between a state and a group of states; the introduction of economic sanctions against this state; the exclusion of a state from international economic and humanitarian organizations, etc. The catastrophic geopolitical risk of the state is characterized by: the existence of a military conflict; the possibility of this state losing its statehood or its sovereignty and others.

In addition, the well-known concept of "country risk" can be used to assess geopolitical risk ^{[28, p.47-48]}.

The geopolitical risk management system should have its own conceptual basis. When synthesizing the concept of managing the geopolitical risk of state activity, the existence of such groups of geopolitical relations should be taken into account:

1) relations of international cooperation of states in the process of reducing geopolitical risk (consensus approach), for example, during the period of overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic;

2) competitive geopolitical relations of states (a confrontational approach), in particular, in the markets of currencies, oil or when imposing international economic sanctions and others.

Hybrid geopolitical competition in this article implies the existence of competitive relations between states, conscious game opposition of geopolitical subjects to each other in various areas of geopolitical relations (in the markets of technology, oil, arms, gas, currencies, etc.) using explicit and latent tools and methods.

With a confrontational approach in geopolitics, such geopolitics is formed during and as a result of the confrontation of subjects of geopolitics. In this case, it should be taken into account that in many geopolitical processes, the subjects of this geopolitics may: have interests of various orientations; the interests of the subjects may be latent; the subject may secretly participate in several competing groups (coalitions) of states at once. For these and other reasons, there may be uncertainty in such aspects of geopolitical competition: the actual composition of geopolitical coalitions; the actual real (and not declared) geopolitics of certain subjects; strategic and tactical goals of global subjects; methods and tools for achieving goals; the volume of actually available resources of various types, other.

All this creates a real need and basis for the application of neurotechnologies in geopolitics and international relations.

The concept of managing a country's geopolitical risk will denote a systematic view of the system of managing such a risk.

Due to the complex structure of geopolitical risk, the very concept of managing such risk may have a corresponding complex structure. To model the structure of geopolitical risk, it is possible to construct a graph-tree (hereinafter simply referred to as the "tree") of the goals of the concepts of geopolitical risk management. The method of synthesis of such a tree of the concept of geopolitical risk management is similar to the method of forming a graph tree of the organization's goals.

At the same time (as already noted) in the structure of the geopolitical risk of the state there are such risks: external conquest, sanctions, payment moratorium, embargo, destruction of the state from within, etc. ^{[28, pp. 85-87]}, demographic risk, epidemic risk and others.

Therefore, the following components can be recognized as structural elements of the concept and the geopolitical risk management system: subsystem (concept) of external conquest risk management; subsystem (concept) of currency risk management; subsystem (concept) of international sanctions risk management; subsystem (concept) of payment moratorium risk management; subsystem (concept) of embargo risk management; subsystem (concept) ofconcept) management of internal socio-economic risks; subsystem of risk management of innovative development; subsystem (concept) of demographic risk management; subsystem (concept) of epidemiological risk management and others.

Methods and tools for the implementation of the concept and design of the geopolitical risk management system of socio-economic development of the country can be considered: historical and comparative analysis; predictive analysis; heuristic synthesis; static, scenario and heuristic forecasting, planning, goal-setting, organization, motivation, control; geopolitical marketing, etc.

When forming the concept of geopolitical risk management, it is recommended to take into account the fact that within the framework of the 9th technological order, the scale and importance (and, consequently, the risks) of innovation activity will increase. This may increase the risk of man-made disasters, environmental contamination, pandemics, including due to accidental damaging factors, human factors (staff errors), etc.

With regard to the geopolitical management system or subsystems of this system (including the risk of a pandemic), it is possible to formulate the following principles of its design and operation: strategic planning of geopolitical risk management; advanced scientific support for the design of a geopolitical risk management system; predictive analysis of the results of geopolitical risk management; periodic monitoring of the intensity of probable causes of an increase (sources) of geopolitical risk; periodic monitoring and assessment of the geopolitical position of the state; periodic SWOT analysis-analysis of a country's competitive position, its competitive advantages and disadvantages; periodic monitoring of the situation with the development of innovation activities within the country; monitoring of the demographic situation; development of plans to reduce individual structural elements and/or geopolitical risk in general; modeling of the geopolitical situation using various types of models; monitoring of sufficiency of various kinds (corresponding to physical nature of risk) reserves and other; availability of mobilization capacities that can be used to reduce this type of risk; reserve anti-epidemic production capacities; availability of pre-trained volunteers (volunteers); formation of a scientifically sound information policy, etc.

When implementing the function of knowledge socialization within the framework of neurogeopolitics, it is proposed to use the following principles of information interaction with society: the need to inform society about the essential features of a risky observed or anticipated situation in the interests of minimizing damage; avoiding information pressure in order to reduce panic and depression in society; reasonable financial costs compared with other risk reduction measures; strengthening elements of information policies that increase reasonable optimism in society and much more.

The information policy of the government during the crisis should prevent the development of a depressive state in society.

Discussion. Within the framework of neurotechnological management, the following is possible: firstly, goal setting, marketing, management; secondly, planning, organization, motivation, control of stakeholders and participants in such a management process.

Neurotechnological control can be: proactive in relation to the real process; process control in real time; subsequent neurotechnological control.

The starting point of neurotechnological management can be considered the analysis and diagnosis of a neurotechnological situation.

Neurotechnological analysis will be called the establishment of causal relationships between factors and the results of neurotechnological management of geopolitical risks.

Neurotechnological diagnostics can be called the process of establishing the causes of the observed situation or the effectiveness of this system. This diagnosis is based on the study of the manifestations of the factors of the situation in question.

The algorithm for analyzing the neurotechnological situation includes the following actions. 1. Identification of the neurotechnological nature of the situation by identifying and analyzing its characteristic features (the presence of severe stress in the subjects; the game situation; the ability to measure physical indicators of human reactions to external influences, etc.). 2. Analysis of the concept of neurotechnological management for: adequacy of this concept; its feasibility; availability of necessary resources. 3. Conducting an analysis of the mission and vision of such management. 4. Analysis of elements of neurotechnological management: plans of such management; organization of this type of management; motivation in this type of management; control in such management. 5. Analysis of the limits of isotonicity of reactions of subjects, objects, stakeholders to management impacts and much more. Special attention should be paid to such an element of psychophysical control as an analysis of the motivation of stakeholders, etc.

Since the geopolitical risk management system is humanistic in nature, it is recommended to take into account possible changes in the psychophysical characteristics of the population when forming a conceptual approach to managing geopolitical risks. In particular, it is recommended to take into account the fact that in 2022 a significant part of the world's population belongs to generation Z.

The mentality of generation Z affects the probability of: a correct understanding of the geopolitical situation; the execution of instructions and commands; the occurrence of panic, stock market crises, etc. It is important that this generation is characterized by a clip type of thinking. With such thinking, the world around a person is reflected in his consciousness and emotional sphere in the form of a sequence of logically unrelated "pictures". Therefore, representatives of this generation may not understand or be slower to understand the logical connections between the emerging threat and its consequences (damage), including slower to perceive threats to their health and life. Because of this, especially in a situation of the need for quick action, severe stress, representatives of this generation may simply not understand the need to carry out certain orders of the authorities, military command, etc.

As part of the socialization of knowledge function in neurogeopoliticology, for the timely detection and reduction of geopolitical risks, it is recommended to include in the curricula of universities the study of the concept and essence of geopolitical risk. With such training, it is recommended to describe the functions, roles, structure, probable sources and consequences of such risk. Additionally, the direct and feedback relationship between business processes in the field of professional activity and changes in the level of geopolitical risk of society, business, and the state can be investigated. It may be recommended to draw the attention of government officials, businessmen and society to the following features of such risks: long time periods of realization of such risk; large scale of damages (and other consequences of such risk for the population and economy); the property of the fundamental nature of geopolitical risk.

As part of the information policy of the state, it is recommended to explain to representatives of society and business circles the increasing role of geopolitical risk in the activities of the state and firms. Attention should also be paid to the complication of the structure of geopolitical risk in the context of globalization, taking into account the trends formed by the process of transition to the 9th technological order. Representatives of business and society should understand that a significant part of business processes and social processes have a geopolitical component. This situation increases the relevance of concepts in the field of geopolitics, including awareness of the need to implement the recommendations of the authorities, for example, on self-isolation of people and other measures during a pandemic.

To limit the level of geopolitical risk of the state, the concept of national responsibility of business can be used. National responsibility of business means: business takes into account the geopolitical interests of the country in its activities; business does not allow actions that increase the geopolitical risk of the state, etc.

An important element of improving the effectiveness of the conceptual approach in the system of geopolitical risk management can be the further development of the philosophy and culture of analysis, forecasting and management of geopolitical risk of socio-economic development.

An important role in improving the effectiveness of the concept and system of managing geopolitical risk belongs to the development of geopolitical perception and thinking among economic entities. The geopolitical perception of business and the geopolitical thinking of business belong to the psychological function of neurogeopoliticology.

In this article, we will define geopolitical perception as: a direct sensory reflection of geopolitical reality in the mind of the subject of business processes or life activity; the ability of this subject to perceive, distinguish and assimilate geopolitical facts and phenomena of the global world.

The geopolitical thinking of an individual is a process of reflecting objective geopolitical reality in representations, judgments, concepts, not only economic, everyday, but also geopolitical level and character.

The nature of the subject's geopolitical thinking is determined by the ability of the subject of thinking: to reason on geopolitical topics; to assess the level of geopolitical risk of their activities; to build certain chains of cause-and-effect relationships between their actions and/or decisions and geopolitical risks, geopolitical consequences.

As part of the discussion of the scientific results obtained in this article on the development of the methodology of neurogeopolitics, we will consider the methodological differences between the traditional approach in geopolitical management and the neurogeopolitical approach.

The analysis shows the existence of a number of fundamental differences between neurotechnological and traditional approaches in management: areas of application; management tools and others.

Example #3. To demonstrate the differences in the methodology and results of the traditional and neurotechnological approach in geopolitics, we will analyze one information impact. In April 2020, the US administration headed by Donald Trump made a statement on the issue of US plans for the privatization and development of the Moon ^[21].

Within the framework of the traditional approach in geopolitical management, such an initiative of the United States (actions to privatize the Moon), as one of the leading global geopolitical players in 2020, may seem: 1) not provided with resources ^[21]; 2) untimely due to the scope of the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide and the United States, in particular; 3) inappropriate due to the beginning of a new presidential electoral cycle in the United States.

At the same time, if we approach this statement of the US administration from the standpoint of the neuro-political economy, then the picture and the result of the analysis of this situation will look significantly different than it looks in traditional management.

As acknowledged in the comments, this statement is most likely aimed at a long-term perspective and has not yet been provided with resources ^[21].

At the same time, from a neurotechnological point of view, this statement: 1) contains the statement of one of the possible long-term strategic goals of the United States; 2) expresses confidence in overcoming the temporary difficulties associated with the pandemic; 3) instills confidence in the election victory of the candidate who came up with such an initiative; 4) generates enthusiasm of the population about the prospects of technological development of the country.

Therefore, within the framework of this statement, from the point of view of neurogeopolitics, at least the existence of strategic goals and plans is shown. At the same time, as research shows, the goal and the meaning of activity determined by this goal are factors of external and internal motivation of society. This is already creating a motive for successfully overcoming the pandemic. In addition, such a statement in 2020 demonstrates and inspires optimism in the issue of overcoming the pandemic, etc. Therefore, by virtue of this factor, this statement can be recognized as a neurotechnological action and/or a decision aimed at reducing the geopolitical risk of this country.

As you know, the traditional approach is based on management principles and rules that are suitable for all situations and organizations. Traditional geopolitical management (management) it is considered as a fairly simple one-dimensional interaction of people and/or organizations. In fact, traditional geopolitical management assumes that all objects of management are the same and react equally to identical impacts ^{[22, p. 37]}. Thus, traditional management is abstracted from: the state of the control object; the goals of the control object; the specifics of the reactions of the control object to the impact; the stress level of the management object and a number of other significant factors.

However, from the point of view of neurotechnologies, the reaction of the control object to the control influence of the control subject can be ambiguous. With the neurotechnological approach, it is recognized that a number of factors influence the reaction of the control object, in particular, the state of this object at the time of external influence on it.

A comparative analysis of the methodological features of traditional management and neurotechnological management is given in Table No. 3.

Table No. 3. Comparative analysis of the methodology of traditional management and neurotechnological management

Source: developed by the author

The analysis of the essence of the neurogeopolitical approach shows the following: 1) the practical usefulness of the neurotechnological approach in geopolitics has been proven; 2) neurotechnologies, their methods and techniques are already actively used in practice in geopolitical management; 3) the theoretical foundations of neurogeopolitics are not yet sufficiently developed, this increases the risk for those subjects who are not able to assess the effectiveness of this kind of geopolitical technologies.

In this article, we can conclude about the relevance, scientific novelty and practical benefits of neurotechnologies in geopolitics. This determines the scientific novelty and practical value of this article.

This article develops the methodological provisions of the author's earlier works on this topic ^{[20, pp. 75-88; 23, pp. 54-63]}. The materials of articles on this topic could be used for practical purposes ^{[23, pp. 54-63]}. This could have been done as part of the development of a real space flight program.

Example #4. It is known that in the fall of 2021, the world's first flight project of a group of artists for shooting a movie in space was carried out. This space flight of the artists was widely carried out in the press. The press positioned this flight as a high achievement, the first space flight of its kind. At the same time, some experts drew attention to a number of circumstances of this space flight: this flight was included in an already existing program; there was a change in the overall research program; some experts doubted the very high assessment of the practical results obtained, and more.

In this regard, it can be assumed that such a flight could be carried out within the framework of a neurotechnological approach in the management of space research?

In order to correctly identify the mission of this flight, it can be recommended to formulate such diagnostic questions:

1) is the practical value of the results of this space flight really that high?

2) do the level of achievements and the amount of coverage of this flight in the media correspond to its practical results?

3) what could possibly be the possible neurotechnological effects of this flight?

The list of such diagnostic questions can be continued by the readers of this article independently. The number and content of these questions should be such that the researcher's answers to these questions would allow for a reliable answer.

Neurotechnological methods in management can be used in a global crisis, for example, in the development of activities and operations. This is due to the fact that during the development of operations, such factors may arise: the counteraction of a reasonable opponent; a high level of stress of decision makers; misleading actions and much more. Presumably, within the framework of the neurotechnological approach in management, the following tasks can be solved: formation of the mission, vision and goals of the operation; justification and selection of the model (analogue) of the operation; study of the composition of the participants of the operation; justification of the list of stakeholders of the operation; description of the motives of the participants and stakeholders; description of the possible results of the operation; and others.

When developing and researching operations, developing management decisions, it can be recommended to use the results of the work ^{[24, p.2; 25, p. 223-230]}. At the same time, it is important to take into account that forecasting by analogy can give the correct result only if such an analogy is proven ^{[25, pp. 223-230]}. When making a decision on the issue of analogy, it is necessary to confirm the existence of such types of analogy: analogy of the conditions (factors) of the operation; analogy of the participants (subjects) of this operation; analogy of stakeholders; analogy of impacts; analogy of the results of the impact. In addition, it can be recommended to establish such types of analogies. Analogy of the motives of the participants and stakeholders of the operation. Methods of justification of management decisions in conditions of uncertainty and risk are described in ^{[25, pp. 69-75]}.

In general, we can say that the field of neurotechnologies in management and economics systematically combines a number of fields of knowledge: operations research; theory of hierarchical systems; game theory; probability theory; theory of managerial decision-making; management philosophy; management psychology, motivation theory; theory of technological orders; international monetary relations and much more.

At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the possibility and results of using neurotechnologies in management should be regulated. The use of neurotechnologies to manipulate public and personal consciousness should be limited. There are already examples of such restrictions. For example, such restrictions exist in the practice of the functioning of the securities market. Participants in the securities market are prohibited from performing such actions: actions leading to price manipulation; actions aimed at destabilizing the entire market; actions that will lead to panic in the stock market and much more.

The analysis shows that specialists are not always able to diagnose the situation of the use of neurotechnologies by geopolitical and socio-economic actors. For example, journalists probably failed to grasp the neurotechnological nature of the politician's speech ^[21].

This can lead to errors in informing society and interpreting events. Therefore, in the period of the 9th technological order, it can be recommended to study neurotechnology at universities within the framework of such specialties as diplomats, journalists, personnel management specialists, marketing specialists and others.

Further development of the theoretical foundations of neurotechnologies in management will allow us to better understand the potential of their practical use. Dissemination (socialization of knowledge) about neurotechnologies will increase efficiency and, at the same time, reduce the risks of using such technologies.

Conclusion. The article examines: the essence of neurotechnological management methods in geopolitics; describes the process of transformation of world orders in the process of changing technological patterns; justifies the change of military and political instruments in the process of changing technological patterns; examines the structure of the geopolitical risk of countries; describes the features of the management of geopolitical risks of the state; considers the concept of national responsibility of business. This article describes the distinctive features of neurotechnological management in relation to traditional management. The study took into account the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the geopolitical risk of the state. The methodological provisions of a new scientific direction - neurogeopolitics are formed in the work: the scope of application of neurogeopolitics is described; the functions, roles, laws of neurogeopolitics are defined; the features of the neurogeopolitical approach in geopolitics are described; a conceptual approach to the design of the geopolitical risk management system for the functioning of the state is developed. The article describes the method of constructing a graph tree of goals for the implementation of the concept of geopolitical risk management, the features of neurotechnological analysis of geopolitical processes to reduce geopolitical risk are studied.