Fulltext search in archive

Frozen conflict in Nagorno Karabakh has been representing a threat to the regional stability for the last two decades. Sudden escalation of violence in 2016, known as Four-Day War, spurred new discussions on factors influencing the territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan. While adversaries explain the conflict as a reaction to military provocations or as a rally round the flag effect, this article explains the dynamics of the conflict through the influence of the third party - Russia. Russia considers the Caucasus to be its sphere of the influence and therefor aims to spread its control through strengthening strategic ties with both Armenia and Azerbaijan in order to prevent the West from projecting its power in the region. Russia's role of the superpower has therefor a vast influence on the Nagorno Karabakh conflict development.

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.

Despite the attempts of labeling hybrid warfare as a new form of warfare or even as a factor that is changing the nature of war, hybrid warfare is part of a war from the Antiquity to the present day. The essence of hybrid warfare is in parallel use of regular and irregular military forcesand different means of pressure by a power unwilling to openly attack a weaker opponent. Information dimension is analyzed in the cases of hybrid warfare against Croatia (1990-91) and Ukraine (2014). In both cases the key target of hybrid warfare was social cohesion of the attacked countries. In the Croatian case, despite a strong propaganda campaign followed by the direct and indirect use of military force, the attacking side was unable to break social cohesion of the majority of Croatia's population. In the Ukrainian case, the lack of social cohesion has prevented organization of the efficient response to hybrid warfare waged by the Russian Federation. Both cases also indicate the significance of national identity in preserving a society's social cohesion.

During the Arab Spring Revolution, when the protests against the Syrian government began in 2011, Russia was one of the strongest backers of President Bashar al-Assad's regime, backing its right to use force if necessary to prevent or put down an uprising. Currently, the Russian Federation is the power which has most prominently provided a diplomaticshieldforthe Syrian state and bolstered it witharms supplies, although Moscow talks about the need to "balance" between the warring parties in Syria. The main aim of this paper is to analyze the motives of the foreign and security policy of the Russian Federation in support of Syrian President BasharAssad in the background of Russian interests and influence of norms. At the theoretical level, the paper builds upon a combination of conventional constructivism and rationalism approaches, which in relation to the motives of Russian protection and defense of the ruling regime in Syria reflects a number of fundamental knowledge.

This article deals with transformation of several categories of subcultural groupings to real or potential actors of hybrid warfare. It is based on trends and events related to the Ukrainian crisis and to the new Russian power projection in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as on the reaction of governments and societies which are threatened by this way of warfare and politics. Research on subcultures and research on strategy and conflict form the conceptual framework of the article. The author analyses the role of military re-enactment groups, bikers, football hooligans and other youth subcultural groups. The risk analysis serves for an assessment of the current impact and a possible future development of the researched phenomenon.

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 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.

On the one hand, Russia is among the countries which often criticize the Western-led military intervention. On the other hand, in the last twenty years, Russia has repeatedly approved using military force by the West against an individual state, endorsed by the United National Security Council. The main purpose of this article is therefore to describe and analyse Russian position towards four Western military interventions 1999-2011. Specifically, the article is focused on two military interventions without UN Security Council mandates (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 and Iraq in 2003), the intervention with the expanded UN Security Council resolution (Afghanistan 2001) and the military intervention that was partially approved by the UN Security Council resolutions (Libya 2011).

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.

The separatist movements at Ukraine, Crimea annexation, have fundamentally changed today's security surrounding. All that came about were in fact described in the last Russian military doctrine of February 2010, herein the Czech strategic thinking failed, leaving the nation unprepared. The Czech military documents identify threats too broadly, without setting definite opponents. One precondition failed completely, namely a gradual emergence of threats, enabling the Czech Republic to prepare itself. The author explains his own views on current security European affairs and asks to modernize and adjust both Czech defence policy and military science.

The article is in Czech Language only.
PDF

The article deals with the issue of creation and realization of space policy. Space programs of individual states are closely connected to decision-making processes of the (general) state (public) policy. Therefore we can raise a question which factors influence these processes and the formulation of space policy and also if they are so unique that could be related only to one particular state. The aim of this article is to focus on one of the factors influencing space policy-strategic culture. Its influence is analysed through case studies of seven nations. Each case study is divided into two parts. First, we identify relevant characteristics of the state's strategic culture. Then, we analyse whether and how the identified characteristics of the respective strategic culture influence the space policy of a state in question. This article seeks to contribute to the growing debate about space as "the next" strategic area and highlights rather overlooked reasons of space exploration.

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.

The objective of this article is to analyse the security and foreign policy of the Russian Federation in 2008-2012, in terms of security culture. The article is based on the assumption that the Russian security and foreign policy during Medvedev's presidency was characterized by four features: promoting multilateralism, exaggeration Russian national security threats, emphasizing the possibility of the use of nuclear deterrence, and using energy as a political tool. The article is based on three Russian strategic documents, i.e. Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation, National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation to 2020 and the Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation. It also examines some events of Russian internal and external policy, especially Russian-Georgian conflict, Medvedev's proposal to create new security architecture in Europe, or the security relations between Russia and the EU, NATO and the U.S.

The results of American foreign, security, defence and military policies are ambiguous. The war in Iraq ends, troops are going to leave both Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama was held up in Arab spring. He tried to improve relations with Russia. The centre of gravity was moved to the Pacific area, which got complicated ties with People's China. He didn't succeed in solving troubles with nuclear programme in Iran. His moderate success in foreign policy was the consequence of his concentration on home politics, health care reform, economy and financial crises. At the end the essay evaluates the Chicago summit that among others officially affirmed that NATO activities in Afghanistan would be concluded by 2014 and declared the so-called smart defence.

Unlike the real state of affairs, the scenarios for Europe 2010 did not presuppose the rise of financial and economy crises. Political scientists did not perceive the series of terrorist attacks, namely in Great Britain, Spain and Russia. Security questions, home security and defence, came to the foreground more then was originally expected. There are hubs of future power blocks of divided Europe. It is impossible to incorporate all the results and consequences of our presuppositions. Since we want to look into individual, particularly interesting developments, the author recommends to create several teams for individual scenarios, instead of drawing several scenarios by one scholarly team.

In the middle of Obama's first presidency, several waves of criticism turned up. According to some analysts, Barrack Obama's first presidency introduces the beginning of new world's era, the so-called "post-ethnical society". The latest discussions prove that the United States have been no longer the only world's superpower, they will remain in the position of world's leader, but still aregoing to substantionally influence global arrangement. Unsuccessful and protracted wars, reflecting serious economic depression with successive debts, effect military budget cuts, even though the American Armed forces are still powerful, potent and mighty power, all around the world, influencing word's events as a stabilising force. The study depicts political and security layout against American domestic political background.

Czech dailies and weeklies publicised their analyses of the diplomatic dispatches released by WikiLeaks. Some were concerned in world's politics, but higher attention was paid to 1,271 dispatches from Prague. According to the dispatches, the U.S. Navy wanted to purchase 23 Russian anti-ship missiles to obtain the weapons from Belarus through Ukraine, with a Czech arms dealer. However, the Czech government decided to derail the plan by not granting the Czech middleman the needed permission to export weapons from a dictatorship like Belarus. Various cables also detailed a dispute in the area of arms technology. Some observations from the dispatches dealing with characteristics of Czech prominent politicians are amusing. Overall, the United States evaluated the CzechRepublic positively, as an economically mature country and as an ally.

This extended essay is based upon various sources, among others on May 2010 President Obama's speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, where President Obama described his national security objectives. The highest priorities of U.S. national security are the safety of Americans at home and abroad and achieving a peaceful, stable world through global cooperation despite a flawed international system. The Obama's security strategy relies heavily on diplomacy and engagement, economic development and other methods of influence, along with U.S. military capabilities with global reach and unsurpassed resources. As we face multiple threats, from nations, non-state actors and failed states, America will maintain the military superiority that has secured country, and underpinned global security, for decades. The security strategy is global, and identifies an array of real or potential security challenges that include: countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials, resolving and preventing conflict; and reducing destabilizing risks to economic interdependence.

Relations between NATO and the Russian Federation are one of key factors influencing overall policy of the whole North Atlantic Alliance. They are complicated and sophisticated questions still predisposed by the heritage of the Cold War.But there are mutual fears, common security problems they both have to counter. NATO policy must be established upon present-day reality. It is self-evident that there are common fields of common interests in which mutual balance must be reached. There are among others: armament, preventing arms proliferation, halting proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical agents, antimissiles defence, counter-terrorism, drugs smuggling, open sea security, common peace operations. After two years the Russian-Georgia war started, military cooperation between Russia and NATO was re-established. Separate problem in midterm prospects presents the solving of conflict in Afghanistan.

The world is changing, new centres of global development have come into being. BRIC stands for Brazil, Russia, India and China that have formed a bloc to challenge US dominance. The acronym BRIC was coined in 2001 by an analyst for Goldman Sachs bank who argued that, by 2050, the combined economies of the BRIC countries would eclipse the combined economies of the current richest countries. This new power politics is reflected by the team of authors Miloš Balabán and Antonín Rašek in a book mentioned above and therefore apart form the BRICK attention is paid to the Unites States and the EU respectively. The main purpose of their analysis is to predict prospective trends in global governance, they lay down four hypothetical scenarios of possible world's development.

The primary purpose for NATO enlargement, covering first three countries of the so-called Visegrad Four and later Slovakia, was the necessity to fulfil "security vacuum" in Central and subsequently in Eastern Europe which came into existence after the fall of Soviet empire. Membership of those countries helped to fix criteria for admission of other states to the Alliance. Today, the NATO alliance stands in front of new important challenge: to work out a New Strategic Concept agreement in late 2010, based upon the idea saying that the security of Euro-Atlantic region is tied with and depends on the safety of the whole world. This safety concept will able to be realized only by means of global strategical governance. More then predicting expected security and defence ideas, the author reopens a broader discussion about the real meaning of NATO membership. He also repeats and enumerates risks and threats we are facing today.

President Barack Obama came to power at a difficult time in America's history. Home and foreign policies are hard to manage, among others, as we are on the threshold of post-ethnic society, and in the war with terrorisms. Obama does not give up American leadership, but he is seeking to find the balance between security and liberty, between power and freedom in the world, broadly speaking. As the consequence, Mr. Rašek presumes emerging the new global security situation: the rise of multipolar world, divided into several new political spheres. This author's opinion is backed by comments by reputable world's political analysts. As far as Euro-Atlantic relations are concerned, or relations with Russia, there are excellent prospects, namely there is the progress with Russia on arms control-part of Obama's determination to put the world on a path toward nuclear disarmament. The author ascribes the drop in Obama's popularity to failed healthcare reform; outside the US, to the fact that Obama is not able to define clear goals and missions in Afghanistan.

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

Backed by a heap of articles from the Western Press, author summarizes the recent conflict in the Caucasus. Georgia's position astride the western access route to the Caspian sea's energy reserves and Central Asia give it geopolitical significance. Moreover, Georgia represents exactly what Russia does not want to see on its borders: a country both independent and increasingly democratic. Russian government instead seeks submission, preferably by authoritarian rulers that it can manipulate. In summer 2008, Russia invaded South Ossetia, aimed at locking Georgia out of NATO. Moscow's military operation has far-reaching implications. To leaders in Ukraine and the Baltic states, it sends signals that it seeks to re-establish control in the former Soviet space. How should the West react? The author is a supporter of improving Russia's behaviour by mutual dialogues, negotiations. He sets an example: dispassionate, non-ideological talks between the former Soviet leader M. Gorbachev and an American president George Bush Sr.

Two retired American foreign ministers (state secretaries) G. P. Shultz, Henry Kissinger, former defence secretary William Perry, former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sam Nunn, signed the proclamation calling for freeing the world of nuclear weapons, eliminating nuclear weapons. The author of this article presents himself as their strong supporter. Among others, for two years, they have been explaining their views on pages Wall Street Journal. Several proclamations were issued in conjunction with the conference remembering Top Summit at Reykjavik where the INF treaty was signed by Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Reagan. Their appeals contain practical measurements: lowering numbers of atomic warheads, START I prolongation, extended time of atomic warning, revoking plans for mass retaliation, common multilateral antiballistic defence, measures against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, opening dialog between the US and Russia to create a joint alert system and to work together to prevent catastrophic nuclear terrorist attacks.

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.

90s introduced the new beginning of international and economical relations. The former USSR used to be overmilitarized state that is now transforming into a democratic republic. After 2000, the RF adopted many arrangements to stabilize the fall of Russian defence industry. The poor results of Russian economy motivated the federal government towards forming five defence agencies (in 1999): Russian Aeronautic and Space Agency (aeronautics and rocket industry), Russian Agency for Command and Control Systems (avionics, electronic industry), Russian Agency for Conventional Weaponry (arms and armament industry), Russian Agency for Ordnance and Munitions, Russian Agency for Shipbuilding. Nevertheless, the ageing of redundant and unnecessary military industries demands horizontal integration that might facilitate cooperation among individual enterprises. This process could help to unify military products and concentrate on modern weaponry, to improve applied technologies, corresponding to demands of 21st century forces.