Fulltext search in archive

This article presents not only an non-conventional approach towards psychology of military groups, but also offers the deep insight into British way of military thinking. This article is concerned with cohesion in its broadest sense. The term cohesion is usually used to describe one of the many contributions to morale. British military doctrine says that manoeuvres approach is an approach to operation in which shattering the enemy's overall cohesion and will to fight is paramount. The cohesion in this context is being used to describe the complex interaction of the physical, moral and conceptual components of fighting. A thorough understanding of the cohesion between people would enhance their fighting power. The good leadership is the means by which an understanding of what enables cohesion can be used to bring it about. Source: Human Cohesion; Shock and Surprise on the Battlefield (D. Rowland, D. Roney, J. Storr), British Army Review No 137, 2005.

In today's conflicts, such as the Global War on Terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, the threat is more difficult to define; in fact, there are often multiple threats working against our forces concurrently. Our army lacks first-hand information from current battlefields, so that the author must make use of mediated experiences. The paper is therefore based upon articles from foreign military magazines, namely Intelligence Synchronization on a Nonlinear Battlefield (Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin 4/2004) and Intelligence in Peacekeeping Operation (International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 1/1997). It is not a mere translation or compilation, but ingenious summing up of discussed ideas. In this study, the author thinks over intelligence synchronization and proposes a new way of looking at it. Methodology heads from priority intelligence requirements towards specific information requirements, via indicators, and so on. The purpose of intelligence synchronization is to focus efforts to build, refine, or clarify the commander's understanding of the battlefield and the threat.

The world is full of unsolvable problems. Every key problem has turned now into multinational one; in fact, this can be handled only if it becomes a transnational problem. Security development is multifaceted process tied with the whole globe. The author recapitulates several models or paradigms that influenced a lot our global strategical thinking. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski; The Choice: The Global Domination or Global Leadership of by the same author; The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel P. Huntington; Avin Toffler's The Third Wave; Kauffman's Fourth Law: Prolegomenon to General Biology (Investigations); Order Out of Chaos by I. Prigogine and I. Stengers. Dr. Volner says that the contemporary humankind has its last chance to push such a solution that might lead us out the world of dangers and threats to start building up a balanced and lasting security, but he warns against waging "small preventive wars", as the only way to safeguard the peace.

The subject of this comprehensive study: the main features of global risk society can be embodied by ecology crises, global financial crises, threat of terrorism. The article is presented as a report to military community and audience, with the underlying focus on terrorism. The author is mapping the global future in the first two decades of this century. As a small country we must pay attention to the developments in the worlds leading powers: the U.S., China, Russia, last but not least, within the EU. Those themes also present individual headings of this study. He treats energy, demography, peace, security, good neighbourly relations, cooperation between states that are most desirable goals we want to reach. In a way, as the main actor of worlds security situation till 2020 is identified Islamist terrorism (radical Islamists, Al Qaeda). At the end Mr. Balabán recalls the former "Security Policy of the Czech Republic" released ten years ago, reminding us the necessity to be prepared for the worst scenarios.

This new generation war could be characterized by an emphasis on nonstate actors, by political and psychological forms of attacks that directly influence opponents. Other characteristics are as follows: extensive refugee flows, violence, transnational criminal aspects. Several factors will impact the nature, frequency and character of "small wars" in the 21st century. Failed/failing states, urbanization, diffusion of actors, communications technology, technological diffusion, religion, and ultra-terrorism. Clausewitz's fundamental appreciation for the primacy of political objectives as the guiding object in war remains relevant to "small wars" as does to interstate conflicts. The problem for today's strategist or policy maker is determining exactly what has changed, how the various means of stratecraft need to be adapted to the specific contingency at hand (according to The Journal of Strategic Studies, 6/2005).

After the communist coup détat in 1948, although formally independent, the Czechoslovak army was subordinated under the General Staff of the Soviet Army. Following the year 1960, its inner life was directed by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (KSČ), in fact by the Military Commission, headed by the First Secretary KSČ. Overall militarization of Czech society was even higher than e.g. in Poland, because in case of military conflict, our territory was supposed to play the role of main European theatre of war. In time of the so-called reform movement in the late 60's, there were some trends to release close ties with the Soviet Union, but at the same time the leading political and military authorities tried to place Soviet forces in Czech territory to strengthen Russian position in arms reduction talks with the US, so that the Soviet Union could boost its units at the borders with People's China. The author compares those events with the recent ones, after November 1989, and following processes of introducing civil control in the forces, their reduction, transformation, and professionalization. He quotes names and works of authors occupied with this theme.

It is extraordinary important decisionmaking, because of fered products determine the successfulness of arranged contracts. For evaluating suppliers we use the so-called scoring model, in which we specify evaluating criteria and assign the weights. To prevent challenging accepted resolution, our decision ought to be supported by the analysis of the third party. This method is called S.P.A. - Supplier Potential Analysis.

In fact, we have no universal method for evaluating impacts and protection of nature during military exercises and training. Establishing Environmental Training Group (NATOTraining Group/Army-Sub-Group) revolutionized the ways in which hazards were defined and analyzed to help communities protect themselves against these perils. Newly developed Training Impact Matrix/ Hazard & Impact Index methods enable truly to assess environmental dangers of military materials, vehicles, activities, energy consumption, and their impacts on important localities. Many features of above mentioned methods were introduced by Czech representatives in 2000 at Aachen (Germany). The index of environmental acceptability was further elaborated by Czech experts, among others by the authors of this article. It enables set levels of environmental dangers, their impacts, independently from organic structure of national forces, or individual countries. The article is accompanied by tables, mathematical formulas and patterns of calculation risk categories.

The professional base for tactical and operational levels of US ground forces and German Federal Armed Forces are the following manuals: US Army Field Manual 100/5 "Operations", since 2001 being labelled as "Field Manual 3-0", and German HDv 100/100 "Truppenfuhrung 2000". Both manuals were drafted in a closed cooperation. The basic principles of German manual Truppenfuhrung 2000 were imitated and copied by the Netherlands armed forces and partly, to a certain measure, also by other NATO nations. Rules of Field Manual 3-0 were tested in peace operations, in the fight against international terrorism in Afghanistan and during the first phase of Second War in Iraq. In fact, the operations of US forces indirectly proved practicability and effectiveness of nearly identical German field rules and manuals, consequently command principles, including those of the so-called nation building. Based upon an article by MG Christian E.O. Millotat in 3/2006 Osterreichische Militärische Zeitschrift, No 3/2006.