Game imperative of modern warfare


  • Oleh Khairulin candidate of psychological sciences, docent of Humanities Institute of Ivan Chernyakhovsky National University of Defense of Ukraine, permanent author of the Psychology and Society journal, Major-General of the Reserve, Kyiv



imperative, a game, war, warfare, VUCA-world, hibrid war, subject of life activity, act, equilibrium, principle, modus, types of scientific rationality, classical science, non-classical science, post-non-classical science, strategic communications


Modern trends of instability, uncertainty and inconsistency of social phenomena objectively complicate the life conditions of a person and society. Such trends began to be used by certain world actors in almost all dimensions and senses of influence and spheres of human life, especially in those where there is a clash of geopolitical interests of such subjects. The consequence of this was the actualization of a multilateral, polycentric, global world order, in which the role and importance of the strategy of asymmetric influences gradually increased. The geopolitical struggle is increasingly acquiring the character of a game – large-scale, insidious, multi-scripted, hybrid. In the clashes of modern world players, the fundamental attributes of the game as a universal ontophenomenal form of human being and society are fully manifested; an integral factor of self-realization of the subject; his tool of intellectual modeling and practice of actions; cultural function of competition, including war, warfare. The game in the modern world has finally acquired signs of the implicity of its aspects in mulitaspect dynamics of being. It has become a fundamental tool for the implementation of any subject’s activity on conditions of risk and uncertainty, especially in potential and manifested danger. In the scale of processes of both world and domestic levels, it substantially permeates the whole space of both actual and those that bear the latent, unacceptable nature of antagonistic collisions of any nature. Under such conditions, the game becomes an imperative of modern confrontation. The game gains this status in the process and thanks to the evolution of the means of military confrontation and resources-means of scientific rationality, which ontogenetically and complementarily define, support and direct their interdependent development. The chronology of military development indicates that it occurs as a continuous, gradual and diversified increase and complication of the means of warfare and clearly coincides with the chronology of scientific development. At the same time, the mutual penetration of military aspects into scientific ones and vice versa with time becomes so synchronized and integrated that it is difficult to find borders beyond which some turn into others. This paradox is explained by the fact that the instability, uncertainty and inconsistency of the modern world finally led to the appearance of a systemic, dissipative, synergetic effect, when the global system and processes in it begin to balance themselves. Such dynamics chronologically coincided with the emergence and strengthening of the post-non-classical period of development of scientific knowledge. This objectively affects the development of the ontological picture of military systems and determines their content. At the same time, it becomes clear that the development of military affairs fully corresponds to the stages of the types transformation of scientific rationality. Therefore, the modern post-non-classical stage has become the logical embodiment of the adaptation of scientific, primarily psychological knowledge, to the requirements of the current environment, especially on critical conditions of military confrontation. The post-nonclassical mode of warfare unfolds in the historical space as a taxonomic modernization of all previous stages of development. Through the logic and content of the classical principles of conventionality, talion and agonism, the disclosure of agonistic, competitive mode of the game, the attributes of the proto-war and the classic type of war are formed. The embodiment of the key principles of non-classical rationality and the appropriate implementation of probabilistic (probable) and imitation modes of the game based on aspects of the classical type of warfare, its non-classical type becomes relevant. Finally, through the integration of nonclassical and post-non-classical principles, the combination of the modes of the game in the “castle” of hedonia as alpha and omega of achieving the subject’s everyday homeostasis arises a post-non-classical type of rationalization of the  war phenomenon. Therefore, the post-non-classical mode-invariant of military-political confrontation (war) is attributively realized through the fulfillment of the principles of: 1) conventionality; 2) talion; 3) complementarity; 4) compliance; 5) uncertainty; 6) observability; 7) superposition; 8) systemic self-development, 9) anthropocentricity, and 10) intersubjectivity. Moreover, in the contexts of game modeling, it is advisable to perceive the superposition as the initial cooperative-intentional subject’s lifeactivity state on any conditions, especially in conflict. The modern arsenal of military means of confrontation, especially its cluster of strategic communications, was finally filled with funds that fully ensure the fulfillment of the game imperative, which determines that the maximum goals of the confrontation must be achieved in an optimal way, at a minimum price, implicitly and covertly. Such an essence of military competition in its enrichment with post-non-classical principles gives the universal “game” imperative value and emphasizes its status as a cultural function of war, warfare.


Akademik Romenets: tvorchist i pratsi: zb. st. / uporiad. P.A. Miasoid; vidp. red. L.O. Shatyrko. Kyiv : Lybid, 2016. 272 s.

Bauman Z. Tekuchaia sovremennost. SPb. : Pyter, 2008. 240 s.

Bek U. Obshchestvo ryska: Na puty k druhomu modernu. M. : Prohress-Tradytsyia, 2000. 384 s.

Bern E. Yhry, v kotorye yhraiut liudy. Psykholohyia chelovecheskykh otnoshenyi. Philosophical arkiv, Sweden, 2016. 164 s.

Bila knyha antyterorystychnoi operatsii na Skhodi Ukrainy (2014–2016) / za zah. nauk. red. I.S. Rusnaka. Kyiv : NUOU, 2017. 148 s.

Bzhezinskyi 3. Velyka shakhivnytsia. Lviv, Ivano-Frankivsk: Lileia-NV, 2000. 236 s.

Bzhezynskyi Z. Plan yhry: heostratehycheskaia struktura vedenyia borby mezhdu SShA y SSSR. M. : Prohress, 1986. 243 s.

Bodryiiar Zh. Symuliakry y symuliatsyy / Zh. Bodryiiar; per. s fr. A. Kachalova. – M. : Yzdatelskyi dom “POSTUM”, 2015. – 240 s.

Bodriiar Zh. Fatalni stratehii. Lviv : Kalvariia, 2010. 192 s.

Burde P. Nachala. Choses dites. M. : Socio-Logos, 1994. 288 s.

Burde P. Sotsyolohyia polytyky. M. : Socio-Logos, 1993. 336 s.

Vainer A.Ia. O protyvoborstve v sfere upravlenyia // Voennaia mysl. 1990. №9. S. 18–23.

Vitakulturna metodolohiia: antolohiia. Do 25-richchia naukovoi shkoly profesora A.V. Furmana : kolektyvna monohrafiia. Ternopil: TNEU, 2019. 980 s.

Herasymov V. Po opytu Syryy // Voenno-promyshlennyi kurer (VPK). Assotsyatsyia voenno-promyshlennykh kompanyi. 2016. № 9. S. 5.

Hyddens Ye. Uskolzaiushchyi myr: kak hlobalyzatsyia meniaet nashu zhyzn. M. : Izdatelstvo “Ves Myr”, 2004. 120 s.

Heizenberh V. Fyzyka y fylosofyia. Moskva : Nauka. Hl. red. fyz.-mat. lyt., 1989. 400 s.

Holosov R.A, Saburov H.Y., Shevelev E.H., Kharlamov N.N. K teoryy boevykh system // Voennaia mysl. 1990. №9. S. 24–33.

Huseltseva M.S. Kulturno-analytycheskyi podkhod k yzuchenyiu evoliutsyy psykholohycheskoho znanyia : dyssertatsyia … doktora psykholohycheskykh nauk : 19.00.01. M., 2015. 459 s.

Kaiua R. Yhry y liudy. Staty y esse po sotsyolohyy kultury. M. : OHY. 304 s.

Kazantsev A.A. “Bolshaia ihra” s neyzvestnymy pravylamy: Myrovaia polytyka y Tsentralnaia Azyia. Moskva : Fond “Nasledye Evrazyy”, 2008. 248 s.

Kytaiskoe yskusstvo voiny. Postyzhenye stratehyy / sost. y red. T. Klyry. SPb.: EVRAZYIa, 2012. 256 s.

Levy-Stros K., Strukturnaia antropolohyia. M. : Nauka, 1985. 536 s.

Lyotar Zh.-F. Sostoianye postmoderna. M. : Ynstytut eksperymentalnoi sotsyolohyy, Spb.: Aleteiia, 1998. 160 s

Mak-Kynsy Dzh. Vvedenye v teoryiu yhr: monohrafiia. M. : Hos. yzd. fyzyko-matemat. lyt., 1960. 420 s.

Makiavelly N. O voennom yskusstve. Sochynenyia ystorycheskye y polytycheskye. M. : Astrel, 2012. 318 s.

Metodolohiia i psykholohiia humanitarnoho piznannia. Do 25-richchia naukovoi shkoly profesora A.V. Furmana : kolektyvna monohrafiia. Ternopil: TNEU, 2014. 998 s.

Miahkaia syla. Miahkaia vlast. Mezhdystsyplynarnyi analiz: koll. monohrafiia. M. : FLYNTA, Nauka, 2015. 230 s.

Nai Dzh. S. Budushchee vlasty. Kak stratehyia umnoi syly meniaet KhKhI vek. M. : AST, 2014. 448 s.

Neiman Dzh. fon, Morhenshtern O. Teoryia yhr y ekonomycheskoe povedenye. M. : Nauka, 1970. 707 s.

Novaia fylosofskaia entsyklopedyia: V 4 t. / nauchno-red. sovet: preds. V.S. Stepyn, zamestytely preds.: A.A. Huseinov, H.Iu. Semyhyn, uch. sekr. A.P. Ohurtsov. M.: Yn-t fylosofyy RAN, Nats. obshch.-nauchn. fond; Mysl, 2010. T. 1. 744 s.

Novaia fylosofskaia entsyklopedyia: V 4 t. / nauchno-red. sovet: preds. V.S. Stepyn, zamestytely preds.: A.A. Huseinov, H.Iu. Semyhyn, uch. sekr. A.P. Ohurtsov. – M.: Yn-t fylosofyy RAN, Nats. obshch.-nauchn. fond; Mysl, 2010. T. 2. 634 s.

Novaia fylosofskaia entsyklopedyia: v 4 t. / nauchno-red. sovet: preds. V.S. Stepyn, zamestytely preds.: A.A. Huseinov, H.Iu. Semyhyn, uch. sekr. A.P. Ohurtsov. – M.: Yn-t fylosofyy RAN, Nats. obshch.-nauchn. fond; Mysl, 2010. T. 3. 692 s.

Psykholohichna entsyklopediia / avt.-uporiadnyk O. M. Stepanov. K. : Akademvydav, 2006. 424 s.

Psykholohycheskyi slovar / pod red. V.V. Davydova, A.V. Zaporozhtsa, B.F. Lomova y dr.; M.: Nauch.-yssled. yn-t obshchei y pedahohycheskoi psykholohyy Akad. ped. nauk SSSR.Pedahohyka, 1983. 448 s.

Savyn L.V. Setetsentrychnaia y setevaia voina. Vvedenye v kontseptsyiu. M. : Evrazyiskoe dvyzhenye, 2011.130 s.

Solonko Y. V. Fenomen kontseptualnoi vlasty: sotsyalno-fylosofskyi analyz. M., 2011. 304 s.

Stepyn V. S. Klassyka, neklassyka, postneklassyka: kryteryy razlychenyia // Postneklassyka: fylosofyia, nauka, kultura. SPb., 2009. S. 249–295.

Stёpyn V.S. Nauchnaia ratsyonalnost v tekhnohennoi kulture: typy y ystorycheskaia evoliutsyia // Ratsyonalnost y ee hranytsy. Materyaly mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsyy “Ratsyonalnost y ee hranytsy” v ramkakh zasedanyia Mezhdunarodnoho ynstytuta fylosofyy v Moskve (15-18 sentiabria 2011 h.). M. : YFRAN, 2012. 233 s.

Stepyn V.S. Teoretycheskoe znanye: struktura, istorycheskaia evoliutsyia. M. : Press-tradytsyia, 2000. 744 s.

Stendynh Hai. Prekaryat: novyi opasnyi klass. M. : Ad Marhynem Press, 2014. 328 s.

Teoryia prohnozyrovanyia y pryniatyia reshenyi : uchebnoe posobye / Sarkysian S. A., Kaspyn V. Y., Lysychkyn V. A., Mynaev E. S., Pasechnyk H. S.pod. red. S. A. Sarkysiana. M., Vyssh. shchkola, 1977. 351 s.

Filosofskyi entsyklopedychnyi slovnyk: dovidkove vydannia / pid kol. red. K. : “Abrys”, 2002. 742 s.

Furman A.V. Ideia i zmist profesiinoho metodolohuvannia : monohrafiia. Ternopil : TNEU, 2016. 378 s.

Furman A. V. Teoretychna model gry yak uchynennia. Nauka i osvita. 2014. №5/ СХХІ. S. 95-104.

Furman A. V., Shandruk S. K. Orhanizatsiino-diialnisni ihry u vyshchii shkoli: monohrafiia. Ternopil: TNEU, 2014. 272 s.

Furman A. V., Shandruk S. K. Sutnist hry yak uchynennia: [monohrafyia]/ Anatolii Vasylovych Furman, Serhii Kostiantynovych Shandruk. – Ternopil: TNEU, 2014. – 120 s.

Khairulin O.M. Psykholohichni vymiry ihrovoho modeliuvannia u viiskovii spravi // Psykholohiia i suspilstvo. 2018. №1-2. S. 83–108.

Khairulin O.M. Teoretyko-psykholohichnyi analiz zmistu katehoriinoho poniattia “hra” // Psykholohiia i suspilstvo. 2017. №3. S. 32–50.

Khairulin O.M. Kaskad ihrovoho modeliuvannia zhyttiediialnosti subiekta // Psykholohiia i suspilstvo. 2019. №1-2. S. 60–91.

Kheizynha Y. Homo ludens. Chelovek yhraiushchyi. SPb. : Yzd-vo Yvana Lymbakha, 2011. 416 s.

Khopkyrk P. Bolshaia yhra protyv Rossyy: Azyatskyi syndrom. M. : RYPOL KLASSYK, 2004. 640 s.

Fundamentalnye y prykladnye yssledovanyia sovremennoi psykholohyy: rezultaty y perspektyvy razvytyia / otv. red. A. L. Zhuravlёv, V. A. Koltsova. M. : Yzd-vo “Ynstytut psykholohyy RAN”, 2017. 2704 s.

Shellynh T. Stratehyia konflykta. M. : YRYSEN, 2007. 366 s.

Sherr Dzh. Zhestkaia dyplomatyia y miahkoe prynuzhdenye: rossyiskoe vlyianye za rubezhom. K. : Zapovit, 2013. 152 s.

Shchedrovytskyi H.P. Orhanyzatsyonno-deiatelnostnaia yhra. Sbornyk tekstov. T. 9 (2) M.: Nasledye MMK. 2005. 320 s.

Entsyklopedyia epystemolohyy y fylosofyy nauky. / za red. V.S. Stepyna, P.P. Haidenko, Y.T. Kasavyna, T.Y. Oizermana, T. Rokmora, R. Kharre, K. Khiubnera, P.H. Shchedrovytskoho, B.H. Yudyna. M: «Kanon+» ROOY «Reabylytatsyia», 2009. 1248 s.

Amos C. Fox and Andrew J. Rossow, Making Sense of Russian Hybrid Warfare: A Brief Assessment of the Russo–Ukrainian War, The Institute of Land Warfare, ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY, LAND WARFARE PAPER No. 112. March 2017. 23 p.

AJP-3(B) ALLIED JOINT DOCTRINE FOR THE CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS., STANAG 2490. Soiuznytska Zahalnoviiskova Doktryna dlia Vedennia Operatsii NATO

Bennett, N. & J. Lemoine . 2014. What VUCA really means for you. Harvard Business Review, 2014

Brian C. Scott, Broadening Army Leaders for the Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous Environment. U.S. Army War College, 122 Forbes Avenue, Carlisle, PA 17013

Caillois R. Man, Play and Games. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS PRESS. Urbana and Chicago. 2015. 208 p.

Cline R. S. World power assessment: A calculus of strategic drift. Washington: Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University. 1975.

Goldman E. Strategic Communication: A Tool for Asymmetric Warfare. Small Wars Journal. October 6. 2007. URL: (accessed: 12.10.2018).

Nye J. (Jr.) Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. NY: Public Affairs, 2004.

Nye Joseph S. Bound to lead: the changing nature of American power. Basic Books, 1990. 167 p.

Nye. J. The future of Power. New York: Public Affairs, 2011. 320 c.

Roselle L., Miskimmon A., O‘Loughlin B. Strategic Narrative: A New Means to Understand Soft Power. Media, War & Conflict. 2014. Vol. 7(1). P. 70–84.

Fleming Brian P. The Hybrid Threat Concept: Contemporary War, Military Planning and the Advent of Unrestricted Operational Art. Fort Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS), U.S. Army Command & General Staff College, 2011.

Hallahan K., Holtzhausen D., Van Ruler B., Vercic D., Siramsh K. Defining Strategic Communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication. 2007. No 1.






How to Cite

Khairulin, Oleh. “Game Imperative of Modern Warfare”. Psyhology & Society, no. 3-4, Dec. 2019, pp. 73-94,