Problem of typology of subjects of war and armed conflict

This article is devoted to understanding the features of the typology of subjects of wars and armed conflicts. Taking as a starting point the well-known statement of K. Clausewitz that “war is a continuation of politics, only by other means”, the author of the article asks the question, which subjects of politics and socio-political processes can simultaneously be actors of wars, armed conflicts, given their characteristics, specifics and available resources? Stating the absence in science to date of a single, generally accepted classification and typology of subjects of wars and armed conflicts, the author of the article considers the existing typologies of subjects of “modern” wars and armed conflicts, proposed, first of all, by modern Russian researchers.

According to the author of the article, in the implementation of the typology of subjects of wars and armed conflicts, a problem arises due to the prevailing so far in the scientific community, progressive and socio-evolutionary attitudes in understanding the process of socio-historical and political development and in the interpretation of the essence, history and classification of wars and armed conflicts. Such attitudes inevitably lead many researchers to the need for mandatory postulation, “proof” of the emergence of “new” (primarily non-state) actors of “modern”, “hybrid”, “proxy wars” and armed conflicts, although, in fact, nothing but their names, designations, changes in legal status or an increase in the role in wars and armed conflicts of our time, with long-identified and existing political subjects, as well as wars and armed conflicts, to date, has occurred.

Emphasizing that not every subject of politics (by its position, specifics of functioning, as well as resource capabilities) is automatically a subject of wars and armed conflicts, the author of the article deduces from the typology of subjects of politics and political processes, its own typology of 16 subjects of wars and armed conflicts, dividing them into two types: state and non-state actors.

1. Alaudinov A.A. K voprosu o tipologii sub’’ektov gibridnyh vojn [On the Typology of Hybrid Warfare Actors] // Rossijskij social’no-gumanitarnyj zhurnal. 2024. N 1 (in Russian).

2. Alaudinov A.A., Strigunov K.S., Goncharenko A.R. Rol’ negosudarstvennyh aktorov v sovremennyh gibridnyh vojnah [The Role of Non-State Actors in Modern Hybrid Wars] // Kaspijskij region: politika, ekonomika, kul’tura. 2024. N 2 (79) (in Russian).

3. Dobren’kov V.I., Agapov P.V. Vojna i bezopasnost’ Rossii v XXI veke []. M., 2011 (in Russian).

4. Elishev S.O. Politika. Bazovye ponyatiya [Politics. Basic Concepts]. M., 2018 (in Russian).

5. Elishev S.O. Osnovy politologii: Uch. [Fundamentals of Political Science]. M., 2025 (in Russian).

6. “Gibridnye vojny” v haotiziruyushchemsya mire XXI veka ["Hybrid Wars" in the Chaotic World of the 21st Century]. M., 2015 (in Russian).

7. Il’in I.A. Nashi zadachi [Our Tasks] // Il’in I.A. Sobr. soch.: v 10 t. T. 2. Kn. 1. M., 1993 (in Russian).

8. Klauzevic K. O vojne [On War]. M., 1934 (in Russian).

9. Mamford E. Proksivojny. Armiya nevidimok vsegda pobedit [Proxy Wars. The Invisible Army Will Always Win]. M., 2025 (in Russian).

10. Novoselov S.V. Negosudarstvennye sub’’ekty kak istochniki ugroz dlya mezhdunarodnogo mira i bezopasnosti [Non-State Actors as Sources of Threats to International Peace and Security] // Kaspijskij region: politika, ekonomika, kul’tura. 2013. N 2 (35) (in Russian).

11. Sivkov K.V., Sokolov K.N. Gibridnaya vojna [Hybrid War]. M., 2023 (in Russian).