Fulltext search in archive

This paper assesses the information war in Ukraine in the context of the military strategy. An influence of the information operation (disinformation and deception) presents the strategic tool. The author pragmatically analyses the information war from the military art perspectives and as a part of the strategy used for support of the combat operations. He identifies phases of the information war in the context of the war. The author expects and confirms the opinion that the information war is led by both external actors (the USA and the Russian Federation). Their top representatives are involving in the information war because they support their own interests. This paper has been written as a neo-realist case study. The balance of power concept is in accordance with the used theory, as well as with the key interests of the external actors.

The article holistically analyses current strategies for the use and development of nuclear forces of the USA and Russia and analytically reflects their mutual doctrinal interactions. It deals with the conditions under which the U.S. and Russia may opt for using their nuclear weapons and reflects also related issues of modernization and development of their actual nuclear forces. The author argues that both superpowers did not manage to abandon the Cold War logic or avoid erroneous, distorted or exaggerated assumptions about the intentions of the other side. The text concludes with a summary of possible changes and adaptations of the American nuclear strategy under the Biden administration as part of the assumed strategy update expected for 2022.

The article is based on the neorealist theory and is aimed to the analysis of the military doctrines of the USA published between 2012 - 2018. It evaluates them as the consequence of important changes after the end of the Cold War, namely the process of the enlargement of NATO. The article explains the US doctrines as a manifestation of a reinforced military self - esteem of the USA and warns that these doctrines should lead to an increase of the military tension at the Eastern frontier of the enlarged NATO.

In 2018, it has been already ten years since one of the major wars of the post-Cold War period, namely, the war between Georgia and the Russian Federation. This war lasted only for five days, but it also became an important milestone in the development of the international security relations as well as the military science at the beginning of the 21^st century. The article evaluates its geopolitical framework on the basis of the neorealist theory of the balance of security threats and it also deals with its impact on the development of the Russian military.

This text presents development of the Ukrainian conflict in the context of contemporary discussion about the extent of Russian intervention in crisis regions. The author explores thesis about application of hybrid war by Russian side, use of new military and strategic methods. He also presents and evaluates the arguments which oppose the idea of considerable changes in character of military conflicts, which were demonstrated during the occupation of Crimea and during the combat clashes in Eastern Ukraine having in mind the state and possibilities of the involved actors.

The article is based on the positions of neo-realism, namely in the works by S. Walt and J. Mearsheimer. It characterizes the key actors of the war in Ukraine, which is a result of a long-term geopolitical competition between the USA and RF in the Black Sea region. The NATO enlargement in the area is classified as a non-coercive Expansion by Invitation (articulated by the elites of the former member states of the USSR and Warsaw Pact), which has provoked growing irritation of Russian political and military elites and the following hybrid war with dramatic international consequences. Last but not least, the article analyses military incidents and resulting security threats and challenges.

The article is aimed on the identification of the tools of the international security organisations (NATO, European Union, Organisation for security and Cooperation in Europe) for de-escalation and resolution of the violent conflict in Ukraine. It is based on the liberal institucionalism. It characterizes and systematises tools and divides it into "soft power" and "hard power" tools. It is analysed the possibility of the use of armed forces as a coercive tool or in peacekeeping or monitoring missions. The NATO and the EU became involved in coercive diplomacy, the OSCE as a "soft power" becomes involved in mediation of the conflict in eastern Ukraine and dispatched long time missions. All three analysed organisations used the tools without placing of armed forces.

The article discusses the operational adaptability, which will be needed, in accordance with US, in future armed conflicts. The capability of operational adaptability has a significant impact particularly on the operations of land forces, which are still considered as a paramount military power. One of the prerequisites for achieving operational adaptability is effective influencing the dynamics of the human environment in armed conflict. Current development and emphasizing technology over the course of armed conflict detached too fare the War from its intangible political, cultural and psychological context. Human, psychological, political and cultural dimensions of armed conflict create a lot of uncertainty, which land forces should deal with in the future military operations. A partial solution applicable for Czech Armed Forces also outlines this article.

This text focuses on process of armament policy of the Armed Forces of Georgia and how it was influenced by country's effort to join NATO. Authors argue that Georgia's proclaimed pro-western ambitions should have also been reflected in the process of materiel procurement. Authors investigate the time period from 2003 to 2008 when growing military expenditures reached it's top. Text shows that only few major acquisitions in that period were focused on western military equipment and that Georgia's military acquisitions did not reflect countrys inclination towards west and NATO.

This article analyses frozen Conflict in separatist region of Transnistria in the light of recent crisis on Ukraine. Despite standing in the shade of Ukraine, the importance of Transnistria has been once again highlighted by Russian support to separatist movements in post-soviet area. Hence text also argues, that by precise analysis of important agents involved in Transnistrian conflict, such as Russia, Ukraine or Romania, we can better understand not only current development in this "de-facto state", but also put annexation of Crimea (or war in eastern Ukraine) into context. On the other hand, influence of Russian military presence in Transnistria on Ukraine war effort is also important and deserves to be closely studied.

Europe is a maritime continent whose economic concerns and security could be backed only by the power of navy forces. The Czech Republic is not a maritime state, but it is a member country of both NATO and the EU, it participates in the formation of common security policy. Czech soldiers could take part in combined joint military operations, where one of forces is also a Navy. Dozens of Czech citizens are employed in common international institutes and staffs; they all need a broader view, including the knowledge of Integrated European Naval Strategy. Their activities promote the status of the Czech Republic at international level.
This contribution contextually explores European space and its naval power. It introduces naval forces projection of European national navies, the bulk of which best respond to current security issues, along with decisions of the national governments of the EU and NATO member states. The article also dedicates extensive attention to the Russian naval strategy.

The article deals with the international context of the latent war in Ukraine. It explains the recent history of the post-Soviet area in the light of Galutng's theory of positive and negative peace. It continues by the annexation of the Crimean peninsula and its international consequences. At the same time, it examines key features of the debate in the USA as well as other NATO countries. It focuses also the debate about the livraison of arms to the Ukrainian government and explains the arguments of proponents as well of the opponents of this controversial project.

Russia's actions in the Ukraine have changed the security situation in the Baltic region, which makes NATO's long-term presence in Latvia essential for the Latvian Republic. The impacts of Russian actions on Latvian defence policy are discussed in the paper by Mr Janis Berzinš,Managing Director of the Centre for Security and Defence Research, National Defence Academy of Latvia, in Policy Paper, No. 2, 2014. It is a new way of intervention, new-generation warfare, without the employment of armed combats, using mostly influence and coercion, by means of covert operations. Abridged and adapted. The original English text is available at http://www.naa.mil.lv/~/media/NAA/AZPC/Publikacijas/PP%2002-2014.ashx. Even though the study came into being in April 2014, the editors regard it worthy to be published, being timeless and with general validity.

Respecting rules of international laws is indispensable to guarantee a peace balance among forces of all states. It ought to be in their own interest. By and large, the flagrant breaking of those rules and acts of aggression correspond directly to the military power of individual states. Examples are abundant. This essay deals with the definition of aggression that was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 14, 1974.

The study analyzes the key features of Russian policies in the late 2000s and their prospective developments. It is above all the rise of Russia's economic power, boosted by the favourable rising trend of energy prices (oil and gas) that has helped to resume again the position of one of the key world powers, obsessively pursuing its geopolitical interests in a new emerging multipolar world. This also determines its relations with other major global actors, e.g. the U.S., the EU, and China (outlined in this article). As far as military budget is concerned, it is increasing. Russia has overcome a long period of stagnancy. After 2007, they re-established strategical patrol flights off Russian territory; great effort is aimed at power projection, as a means to secure natural resources beyond Russian boarders. The study is closed by Russia's geopolitical prospects till the year 2020. and its Anticipated Development

The author compares two scholarly books: World's Tension Epicentres by M. Šlachta (published in 2007) and Security Policy of the Czech Republic by the team of authors headed Jaroslav Janda. The latter study of 1996 uses different terminology: instead of today's favourite teams threat or security threats, they are civilizational risks, economical risks, military risks, environmental risks and so on. The special attention is paid to undemocratic, autocratic states, violating humane rights. Those who owned nuclear weapons are regarded as especially dangerous to peace. Those risks have multiplications effects, they could be solved only by collective effort of all interested states. The recent history confirms predictions made by the team of Jaroslav Janda. The analysis by Mojmír Šlachta contributes to deeper understanding present state of affairs, among others it covers rising Islamic word.

The return of Russia as a power that begins again to partake in political agenda of present-day world raises the necessity to reflect its inner developments in the background of its recent history. There are six key factors that substantionally influence the position of Russia in the world: large sources of raw materials (pipelines); outstanding military capacities (the world's second nuclear potential); high level of general education; wide scientific and research base; permanent membership in UN Security Council and in the Group of Eight (G-8); deciding influence in the near neighbourhood. The study comes to the conclusion that Russia-in the horizon of 2020-will belong among world's leading actors, together with the US, the EU, China, and Islamic world. Russia will be able to of enforce its foreign and security goals, both in post-Soviet areas and in key regions in Europe, Asia and in the Great Near East. As such, it will probably get into conflict with the US. The priority tasks of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will rest on maintaining nuclear parity with the US and building capacities for asymmetrical operations.