Suchergebnisse

Despite the worldwide condemnation of Russia's aggressive activities in the war against Ukraine, there is no unified definition of terrorism in relation to Russia. Russia is referred to as a terrorist state as well as a state that supports terrorism, and the conceptions of a terrorist regime or a user of terrorist methods dominate. The answer to whether Russia should be labelled a terrorist state, a state that sponsors terrorism, or possibly not designate Russia's actions as terrorism depends on the definition of terrorism. Given the complexities of the conception of terrorism, the purpose of this article is to present a possible assessment of Russia's aggression in Ukraine by exploring the challenge of defining state and state-sponsored terrorism in traditional and critical terrorism studies. The article promotes a wider academic discussion regarding state and state-sponsored terrorism, not only from diverse theoretical perspectives in terrorism studies but also by evaluating the issue of the phenomenon's politicization in the context of international relations.

Despite the historically perceived importance of the cultural element in warfare, after the end of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and other culturally distant countries, it is believed that the cultural element has lost its importance. According to some experts, the beginning of Russia's invasion of Ukraine marks a return to conventional warfare, in which a state's material military capabilities play the most significant role in determining its power. But in fact, in this war, soft interoperability, the most essential aspect of which is the cultural element, gained considerable prominence by demonstrating once again that understanding one's own culture and values comes before understanding others. This study aims to look at the cultural element more broadly through the prism of interoperability and, specifically, through soft interoperability and answer the question of how the cultural element, specifically the cultural competences of military personnel manifests in NATO military doctrines, given that NATO is an international security organization with obligations that extend beyond simple defence.

The article seeks to reveal the possibilities of a theoretical interpretation of power in the broad sense and military power in the narrow sense in the context of the realism paradigm, with a deep focus on including intangible resources in the interpretation of power. In the article, the interpretation of power is consciously grounded on the synthesis of power as resources and power as relation perspectives meanwhile applying this synthesis to the analysis of military power. Thus, military power is perceived as covering not only material but also non-material resources and as being contextual in nature. The article forms assumptions that the interpretation of military power depends on the security environment perception of the political and military elite: by changing warfare concepts and force employment methods they introduce military innovations, while military doctrines are an instrument of power conversion – through them the security environment perception is imparted and the structure of military power is changed. Such an interpretation of military power, combining different insights based on the paradigm of realism, allows the formation of an alternative approach to the interpretation of military power.

The article seeks to reveal the possibilities of a theoretical interpretation of power in the broad sense and military power in the narrow sense in the context of the realism paradigm, with a deep focus on including intangible resources in the interpretation of power. In the article, the interpretation of power is consciously grounded on the synthesis of power as resources and power as relation perspectives meanwhile applying this synthesis to the analysis of military power. Thus, military power is perceived as covering not only material but also non-material resources and as being contextual in nature. The article forms assumptions that the interpretation of military power depends on the security environment perception of the political and military elite: by changing warfare concepts and force employment methods they introduce military innovations, while military doctrines are an instrument of power conversion– through them the security environment perception is imparted and the structure of military power is changed. Such an interpretation of military power, combining different insights based on the paradigm of realism, allows the formation of an alternative approach to the interpretation of military power. ; Šiame straipsnyje siekiama atskleisti galios plačiąja prasme ir karinės galios siaurąja prasme teorinio aiškinimo realizmo paradigmos kontekste perspektyvas, ypatingą dėmesį skiriant nematerialių išteklių įtraukimo problematikai. Straipsnyje galios aiškinimas grindžiamas galios kaip išteklių ir galios kaip santykio perspektyvų derinimu, laikantis nuostatos, kad galia kaip ištekliai ir galia kaip santykis tarpusavyje glaudžiai susijusios: galios ištekliai– tiek materialūs, tiek nematerialūs– sukuria galios santykį. Ši perspektyva pritaikoma ir karinės galios aiškinimui– karinė galia suvokiama kaip apimanti ne tik materialius, bet ir nematerialius išteklius, be to, esanti kontekstualaus pobūdžio. Straipsnyje formuojamos teorinės prielaidos, jog karinės galios aiškinimas kinta atsižvelgiant į politinio ir karinio elito saugumo aplinkos suvokimą: keisdami karybos koncepcijas ir pajėgų naudojimo būdus jie diegia karines inovacijas, o karinės doktrinos yra galios konversijos priemonė– per jas perteikiamas saugumo aplinkos suvokimas ir keičiama karinės galios struktūra. Toks karinės galios aiškinimas, susiejantis skirtingas realizmo paradigma paremtas įžvalgas, leidžia suformuoti alternatyvų požiūrį į karinės galios aiškinimą.

The article aims to review the change in the security environment after the Cold War. This change led to the growing importance of the cultural element in warfare and its inclusion in the military planning This element reflects the increase in the importance of soft power in the current interpretation of state and military power and can be related to the expanded range of military operations. The first part discusses how the cultural element in modern warfare has become part of the military arsenal. More specifically, it discusses the influence of the security environment and the new war paradigms that explain this change. The second part analyses the changes in the concept of the soldier and the need for a soldier diplomat in modern warfare. This need reflects the establishment of the cultural element and of cultural competences of military personnel both in the scientific and the military context.

The article aims to review the change in the security environment after the Cold War. This change led to the growing importance of the cultural element in warfare and its inclusion in the military planning This element reflects the increase in the importance of soft power in the current interpretation of state and military power and can be related to the expanded range of military operations. The first part discusses how the cultural element in modern warfare has become part of the military arsenal. More specifically, it discusses the influence of the security environment and the new war paradigms that explain this change. The second part analyses the changes in the concept of the soldier and the need for a soldier diplomat in modern warfare. This need reflects the establishment of the cultural element and of cultural competences of military personnel both in the scientific and the military context.

The article seeks to reveal the possibilities of a theoretical interpretation of power in the broad sense and military power in the narrow sense in the context of the realism paradigm, with a deep focus on including intangible resources in the interpretation of power. In the article, the interpretation of power is consciously grounded on the synthesis of power as resources and power as relation perspectives meanwhile applying this synthesis to the analysis of military power. Thus, military power is perceived as covering not only material but also non-material resources and as being contextual in nature. The article forms assumptions that the interpretation of military power depends on the security environment perception of the political and military elite: by changing warfare concepts and force employment methods they introduce military innovations, while military doctrines are an instrument of power conversion – through them the security environment perception is imparted and the structure of military power is changed. Such an interpretation of military power, combining different insights based on the paradigm of realism, allows the formation of an alternative approach to the interpretation of military power.

Although the issues of military studies are increasingly analysed in the framework of political science, the representatives of international relations and military studies use different ways of interpreting military power – one of the key aspects of military studies. With the intention of expanding the possibilities of applying theories of international relations to military studies, this article aims to show the need for a synthesis of theoretical insights into neoclassical realism and military studies for scientific interpretation and research of the military power structure. The inducement of inter-paradigmatic debates by revealing and comparing military power explanation methods reflects a theoretical attempt to expand the possibilities for the application of international relations theories on warfare studies. Although the application of neoclassical realism theory to the explanation of military power is not new, this study explores broader possibilities of the application of this theory. The study substantiates the influence of non-material resources and unit-level variables on the structure of military power while making the assumption that neoclassical realism creates conditions to reveal the process of military power conversion but not the content of military power

The article aims to review the change in the security environment after the Cold War. This change led to the growing importance of the cultural element in warfare and its inclusion in the military planning This element reflects the increase in the importance of soft power in the current interpretation of state and military power and can be related to the expanded range of military operations. The first part discusses how the cultural element in modern warfare has become part of the military arsenal. More specifically, it discusses the influence of the security environment and the new war paradigms that explain this change. The second part analyses the changes in the concept of the soldier and the need for a soldier diplomat in modern warfare. This need reflects the establishment of the cultural element and of cultural competences of military personnel both in the scientific and the military context.

The article seeks to reveal the possibilities of a theoretical interpretation of power in the broad sense and military power in the narrow sense in the context of the realism paradigm, with a deep focus on including intangible resources in the interpretation of power. In the article, the interpretation of power is consciously grounded on the synthesis of power as resources and power as relation perspectives meanwhile applying this synthesis to the analysis of military power. Thus, military power is perceived as covering not only material but also non-material resources and as being contextual in nature. The article forms assumptions that the interpretation of military power depends on the security environment perception of the political and military elite: by changing warfare concepts and force employment methods they introduce military innovations, while military doctrines are an instrument of power conversion – through them the security environment perception is imparted and the structure of military power is changed. Such an interpretation of military power, combining different insights based on the paradigm of realism, allows the formation of an alternative approach to the interpretation of military power.

Although the issues of military studies are increasingly analysed in the framework of political science, the representatives of international relations and military studies use different ways of interpreting military power – one of the key aspects of military studies. With the intention of expanding the possibilities of applying theories of international relations to military studies, this article aims to show the need for a synthesis of theoretical insights into neoclassical realism and military studies for scientific interpretation and research of the military power structure. The inducement of inter-paradigmatic debates by revealing and comparing military power explanation methods reflects a theoretical attempt to expand the possibilities for the application of international relations theories on warfare studies. Although the application of neoclassical realism theory to the explanation of military power is not new, this study explores broader possibilities of the application of this theory. The study substantiates the influence of non-material resources and unit-level variables on the structure of military power while making the assumption that neoclassical realism creates conditions to reveal the process of military power conversion but not the content of military power

Although the issues of military studies are increasingly analysed in the framework of political science, the representatives of international relations and military studies use different ways of interpreting military power – one of the key aspects of military studies. With the intention of expanding the possibilities of applying theories of international relations to military studies, this article aims to show the need for a synthesis of theoretical insights into neoclassical realism and military studies for scientific interpretation and research of the military power structure. The inducement of inter-paradigmatic debates by revealing and comparing military power explanation methods reflects a theoretical attempt to expand the possibilities for the application of international relations theories on warfare studies. Although the application of neoclassical realism theory to the explanation of military power is not new, this study explores broader possibilities of the application of this theory. The study substantiates the influence of non-material resources and unit-level variables on the structure of military power while making the assumption that neoclassical realism creates conditions to reveal the process of military power conversion but not the content of military power

Although the issues of military studies are increasingly analysed in the framework of political science, the representatives of international relations and military studies use different ways of interpreting military power – one of the key aspects of military studies. With the intention of expanding the possibilities of applying theories of international relations to military studies, this article aims to show the need for a synthesis of theoretical insights into neoclassical realism and military studies for scientific interpretation and research of the military power structure. The inducement of inter-paradigmatic debates by revealing and comparing military power explanation methods reflects a theoretical attempt to expand the possibilities for the application of international relations theories on warfare studies. Although the application of neoclassical realism theory to the explanation of military power is not new, this study explores broader possibilities of the application of this theory. The study substantiates the influence of non-material resources and unit-level variables on the structure of military power while making the assumption that neoclassical realism creates conditions to reveal the process of military power conversion but not the content of military power

The article aims to review the change in the security environment after the Cold War. This change led to the growing importance of the cultural element in warfare and its inclusion in the military planning This element reflects the increase in the importance of soft power in the current interpretation of state and military power and can be related to the expanded range of military operations. The first part discusses how the cultural element in modern warfare has become part of the military arsenal. More specifically, it discusses the influence of the security environment and the new war paradigms that explain this change. The second part analyses the changes in the concept of the soldier and the need for a soldier diplomat in modern warfare. This need reflects the establishment of the cultural element and of cultural competences of military personnel both in the scientific and the military context.