The modern world of global relations is a unified, dynamically developing system that does not leave a single country the opportunity to exist separately from the world community without serious damage to its socio-economic and cultural development. Under these conditions, the subjects of international relations pursuing their selfish goals, in the absence of an external force capable of making them act in the interests of all mankind, objectively find themselves in a situation of “war of all against all”. In essence, this state of affairs has always been in world practice, but in the last decade the situation has fundamentally changed in the direction of increasing tension both within individual countries and between national states and their alliances.

Vivid examples of the growing instability are the “color revolutions” and all kinds of sanctions, which have become a hallmark of the world order since the end of the twentieth century. Sanctions are an instrument of influence on individual countries and organizations in order to force them to change their policies and behavior. Moreover, if revolutions are caused by internal contradictions of a particular state and are the quintessence of such contradictions, then sanctions relate to the external sphere, i.e. arise in the field of relations between subjects of international law.

The use of sanctions as a special tool for solving various problems that cannot be agreed upon is a fairly new phenomenon, and its effectiveness is due to global ties and global interdependence, until the appearance of which there was no sense in sanctions. However, now that the world has entered the stage of multifaceted globalization, they have become a reality, and no matter how strange it may seem, they can be attributed to civilized methods of defending their interests in international affairs of the global world, built on the contradictions and confrontation of various subjects of international law. In essence, this is the use of “soft power” when it is not possible to find solutions through negotiations or on a legal basis.
The use of sanctions as a special tool for solving various problems that cannot be agreed upon is a fairly new phenomenon, and its effectiveness is due to global ties and global interdependence, until the appearance of which there was no sense in sanctions. However, now that the world has entered the stage of multifaceted globalization, they have become a reality, and no matter how strange it may seem, they can be attributed to civilized methods of defending their interests in international affairs of the global world, built on the contradictions and confrontation of various subjects of international law. In essence, this is the use of “soft power” when it is not possible to find solutions through negotiations or on a legal basis.

Of course, sanctions are bad. This is the curtailment of trade, business, financial and other relations, the deterioration of the economic situation and the decline in living standards, experiencing which, one or another side of the conflict makes or does not make concessions and agreements. As the experience of, for example, North Korea, Cuba or Iran, and now Russia, shows, sanctions can be ignored for a long time, and the alternative can be either concessions and subsequent compliance with the agreements reached, or aggravation of the conflict and continued clarification of relations, but with the help of military force. However, it is important to emphasize that sanctions, both unilateral and bilateral, are not just a natural consequence of unresolved contradictions in international relations, but a rather effective way to express your disagreement and peacefully oppose the other side of the conflict under conditions that are influenced by multidimensional globalization, where everyone the structural elements of the global world are in close interdependence. In these circumstances, an alternative to sanctions, if the parties are unable or unwilling to agree, can only be the direct use of hard power and the outbreak of hostilities. That is why the application of sanctions (as a form of “soft power”), especially in conflict situations involving countries possessing nuclear weapons, should be considered not only as a last resort, but also as a choice between bad and worst, when choosing bad, nevertheless, they refrain from the worst-case scenario, while retaining the possibility of returning to negotiations and reaching mutually acceptable agreements.

Another thing is “color revolutions”. They also destabilize social life and pose a threat to established social relations, and not only within a country. Having a direct resemblance to social upheavals that have taken place over all centuries and in various forms, they nevertheless have their own specifics. In conditions of global mobility and a planetary communication system, in addition, with the widespread use of media and information technologies, they can lead to a change of power without violent actions, the likelihood of which is directly proportional to the level of development of civil society in a given country.

What is the true nature of such phenomena? What is their basis? Why precisely from the end of the 20th century? and why exactly at this time did they become a regular occurrence of public life? Finally, has the era of such revolutions ended and can they be prevented? Let's say right away - no, this era has not ended and it is almost impossible to prevent such revolutions. They can only be delayed or “released by brakes” under certain circumstances and the corresponding reaction of the authorities, lowering the danger level to a certain level, and then only for a certain time, since the reason in this case is not eliminated.
But first, let's look at how the centers of instability are geographically located. It is not difficult to notice that the countries where the “color revolutions” took place or there were attempts to make them are located mainly at the “junctions” of culturally-civilizational systems that are fundamentally different from each other. It is there that “zones of instability” are quite clearly visible, especially the one that runs along the line connecting the countries located around Western Europe. So, it is quite obvious that an almost continuous line is being built that starts from Gibraltar and then passes along North Africa along the Mediterranean coast through the Middle East to Armenia and Georgia, then through Ukraine, Belarus to the former Baltic republics. Also quite clearly traced line passing through the Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. At the same time, we practically do not see anything like it in North America, sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, and, with some reservations, in South America, as well as in the Asian space (in addition to the already mentioned regions of this continent), where only a few centers of semblance of “color revolutions”, an example of which can be events in the Philippines (1986) or in Hong Kong (2014-2015).

The main reason for the “color revolutions” is the fundamental contradictions that stem from the cultural and civilizational differences of individual countries and peoples in the context of globalization. This means that an explanation of this phenomenon should be sought not only in the socio-political structure and economic condition of individual countries, but also in how they relate to the surrounding social systems. For a better understanding of the essence of what is happening, it is necessary to turn to the concept of “Cultural and civilizational system”, which has been introduced into scientific circulation relatively recently and is used in relation to a particular social structure, a certain community of people, to characterize them as a single whole at the same time on both sides - with sides of their cultural affiliation and involvement in civilizational processes.

Culture is the basic characteristic of any social systems. And since the core of any culture is always language, traditions and, to a large extent, religion, because of their uniqueness and irreducibility to other languages, traditions and religions, they give each particular culture distinctive features, originality and uniqueness, making them something that separates, but in fact it separates individuals, and all kinds of communities. This is where the roots of many conflicts and conflicts of interest lie. However, in reality, we see not only isolation and confrontation, but also cooperation, productive interaction of people. But this happens on a slightly different basis - a civilizational basis, the beginning of the formation of which refers to the emergence of the state, and which by now has a different degree of development among different peoples. What is called civilization (softening morals, respect for law and human rights, a culture of relations with the equality of all before the law, etc.) is precisely the integrating principle in public relations.

Civilization thus appears, as it were, the flip side of culture. At the same time, culture is a kind of internal characteristic of society, revealing its essence, while civilization is rather a form, an external frame of culture that characterizes society from the point of view of its forms of management, functional connections and relations. From this point of view, any society can and should be considered as a cultural-civilizational system. This applies to the world community as a whole. Now, when, under the influence of globalization processes, humanity has become a planetary phenomenon, while preserving the well-known autonomy and self-sufficiency of its components within individual regions and local territories, there is a need to see the unity of this entire social organism in its diversity and interconnection. Note that any social community is identified on the geographic map of the Earth (for example, within the boundaries of a national-territorial entity, a specific state or their alliances). In the social sciences, the following terms are used to designate such territories: “district”, “region”, “region”, “ecumenical” and, as the limit value of territorial coverage, “the whole world”, i.e. planet as a whole.

Highlighting the cultural and civilizational systems, we will focus on the territorial boundaries, within which, with all the cultural diversity of various social entities, their civilizational unity is manifested. From this point of view, in the modern world sociosystem eighteen cultural-civilizational ecumenical societies are quite clearly visible:

1) Western European.
2) Eastern European.
3) Russian.
4) Middle Eastern.
5) Middle Eastern.
6) Central Asian.
7) Asian (Southeast).
8) Indian.
9) Chinese.
10) Japanese.
11) Pacific.
12) Australian (including New Zealand).
13) North American.
14) Central American.
15) South American.
16) North African.
17) Central African.
18) South African.

The above list does not at all exclude other approaches and a different gradation, but in our case it allows you to look at the modern world from an unusual perspective and makes it possible to see it in a new way. At the same time, making a distinction between individual cultural and civilizational systems, it is not worth comparing them on the basis of "better" or "worse". However, it is important to clarify the characteristics characteristic of each of them and determine the possibilities of their cultural and civilizational interaction. So, the more cultural-civilizational coincidence of various peoples is revealed, the easier and more active the atmosphere of mutual understanding and cooperation between them develops. In particular, comparing the western and eastern types of social development, it can be noted that in the East the collectivist principle traditionally dominates, while in the West it is the individual principle. Hence, people in the East are more focused on adapting to the existing socio-political environment, rather than on its transformation, as is typical of the Western mentality. In the East (mostly in Russia), emphasis is placed on culture, while in the West on civilization. From this point of view, social conflicts and shocks in the form of “color revolutions”, sanctions, etc. cease to be random phenomena, since their nature is clarified through the interaction and opposition of various cultural and civilizational systems.
Returning to the "belt of instability", which encircles the West European cultural and civilizational oikumena, it can be argued that it is due to direct contact, and in fact, the collision of this oyumene with the adjacent North African, Middle Eastern and East European cultural and civilizational which are at other levels, civilizational development. For historical, economic, socio-cultural and a number of other reasons, there are more authoritarian systems of government, more poorly developed civil institutions and civil society, less significant attitude to universal values, recognition and observance of human rights. As a result, as globalization processes and technical capabilities increase, increasing interdependence and social mobility, information openness, etc., more and more people in countries closely adjacent to Western Europe receive information about another life. At the same time, people are increasingly trying to change their lives. They strive to make it more civilized while maintaining a traditional culture. Not having the appropriate opportunities for this at home, the most active part of the population decides to emigrate, fleeing from upheaval, powerlessness and poverty where there is stability, legal protection and relative prosperity. As a result, in recent years, Europe has literally suffocated by the influx of emigrants.

But this problem has another aspect. Since everyone cannot leave the countries adjoining the European Ocumene, and the number of dissatisfied people is growing rapidly, when the “critical mass” of such people is reached, the conditions for the start of “color revolutions” come. Examples of such events are not only the states of North Africa, the Middle East, Georgia or Ukraine, but also Moldova, Belarus, Armenia, potentially Azerbaijan, to a certain extent Russia. Not everything is simple from this point of view in Europe itself. The closer to the edges of her oecumene, i.e. to its cultural and civilizational borders, the less stable socio-economic and political situation, which is fully confirmed not only by the Portuguese or Balkan experience, but also by Spanish, Italian problems, and potentially by the Baltic republics, not to mention the last Greek financial crisis.

Well, why at the junction of such cultural and civilizational systems (ecumenical) as the Russian and Chinese or Central African and South African processes that are not visible that would cause such a revolution? The answer is quite obvious - between them there is not that big difference in the levels of civilizational development that would create a sufficiently strong tension at the junctions of their cultural and civilizational systems. As for ecumenical scholars such as North American, Central American, South American, Pacific, Australian or Japanese, they are to some extent insured against color revolutions by not connecting (or practically not connecting) with other cultural and civilizational systems, being separated from them, as as a rule, ocean open spaces. And those of them whose population actively travels and conducts business widely around the world (primarily, the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia) are civilized enough to not be afraid of color revolutions.