The future of challenges for NATO related to new wars, failed states, and globalization are the subject of the emerging analyses, and the sources for them are, among others, the experience of military operations in Afghanistan and Libya. For the current and future alliance, the most geographically important places of uncertainty in this area are North Africa, the Middle East, and Ukraine. Due to the complex political, military, and social conditions, NATO must seek allies globally and regionally in the fight against security problems generated by new wars, failed states, and globalization. The military nature of the organization requires it to have soft power resources that enable the development of human capital resources in troubled regions, which is crucial for their stabilization.
Top1. New Wars
Mary Kaldor, the British creator of this concept, defines (Kaldor, 2006) 'New Wars' as conflicts fought over identity rather than ideology by non-state actors, not regular state armies. In these wars, the targets of attacks are primarily the civilian population, not military facilities. In a broader sense, it is about weakening rather than building a new state. Their opposite, according to Kaldor, are the 'Old Wars', which consist in striving to defeat the enemy by weakening his military strength through violence. The Old Wars are therefore to be characterized by the involvement of regular armies and the battles between them. The soldiers of the parties to the conflict are uniformed and recognizable. Where “military necessity” permits, civilian casualties are minimized. There are different ways of financing “old” and “new” wars. Funding for the “New Wars” comes from looting, robbery, hostage-taking, trafficking in illicit goods, extorting humanitarian aid, and remittances from diaspora and foreign governments. This way of financing a war can also cause combatants to be interested in continuing the struggle, which creates opportunities for the parties to continue earning money. In contrast, the “old wars” are financed by the state, which taxes the population. This can have an impact on state-building if the population demands in return a certain level of state responsibility. On the other hand, the “new wars” are financed by bypassing the state and have no such impact on state-building.
According to Keldor, the New Wars are therefore associated with the activities of non-state actors in regions where state power has collapsed in conjunction with the emergence of war economies. The division into old and new wars is supposed to prove the far-reaching transformation of war in the globalized era. The division itself, as its critics emphasize, does not give satisfaction because it is not always easy to distinguish between the two types of conflicts. Sven Chojnacki, who conducts daily research on privatization and commercialization of security, especially in areas of limited statehood, introduced a broader division into: Inter-state wars (between at least two sovereign states); Extra-state wars (between a state and one or more non-state groups outside its territorial boundaries); Intra-state wars (between the government and one or more non-state actors within an internationally recognized state) and Sub-state wars (between mostly non-state actors within or across borders) (Chojnacki, 2006, 34).
According to the research conducted by Chojnacki in the years 1946-2003, 166 wars took place, but only 16 could be classified as “new wars” (according to the Kaldor classification) or sub-state (according to Chojnacki himself). Chojnacki rejects the hypothesis that the “New War” is currently the dominant form of violence, as it does not account for most of the conflicts currently occurring. Among the types of contemporary conflicts, it is noticeable that internal wars are 8 times more numerous than wars between states. Moreover, the length of these conflicts increases civilian casualties (from 10% in 1900 to 80-90% in 2000). An undisputed fact about the nature of contemporary conflicts, confirmed by other researchers, is the change consisting in the increase of the number of civilian casualties as compared to military ones (Rigterink, 2013).
According to Sven Chojnacki, an important factor of change in contemporary scientific research of wars is the issue of the growing risk of military interventions aimed at stopping continued violence in failing states, terrorism and war crimes. According to the researcher, interventions have become 'a prominent tool of foreign policy' since the end of the Cold War, such as Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. These interventions shape the contemporary international order and become part of the typology of new conflicts.