The dissertation seeks to modify, update and bring back the tradition of political theory which based its understanding of political in the state and the society mainly on the perspective of the military dimension. The dissertation argues this forgetfulness creates serious obstacles when trying to understand contemporary military changes and their wider implications. Historical turn of political science is seen as a way to make this update real. Historical notion of Military revolution is seen as specific conceptual "tool" that will make this turn. Using historiographical analysis development of military revolution, changing character of war, transformation of armed forces and development of American civil-military, military and police relations are discussed. American case is analysed because by being the most militarily advanced Western state this country had to felt first the effect of changes in state and society caused by military transformation.
The main three objectives are: to explore the most prevailing leadership theories starting from the second half of the twentieth century until today, which are widely used in the military; to make a deeper analysis of the leadership conception of the Lithuanian Armed Forces in between the First and the Second World Wars, specifically in the forth decade; to compare with which modern leadership theory/ies the above mentioned concept could be associated.
The main three objectives are: to explore the most prevailing leadership theories starting from the second half of the twentieth century until today, which are widely used in the military; to make a deeper analysis of the leadership conception of the Lithuanian Armed Forces in between the First and the Second World Wars, specifically in the forth decade; to compare with which modern leadership theory/ies the above mentioned concept could be associated.
The main three objectives are: to explore the most prevailing leadership theories starting from the second half of the twentieth century until today, which are widely used in the military; to make a deeper analysis of the leadership conception of the Lithuanian Armed Forces in between the First and the Second World Wars, specifically in the forth decade; to compare with which modern leadership theory/ies the above mentioned concept could be associated.
The main three objectives are: to explore the most prevailing leadership theories starting from the second half of the twentieth century until today, which are widely used in the military; to make a deeper analysis of the leadership conception of the Lithuanian Armed Forces in between the First and the Second World Wars, specifically in the forth decade; to compare with which modern leadership theory/ies the above mentioned concept could be associated.
The aim of the methodical tool is to improve students' knowledge and give major guidelines on the writing of BA/ MA thesis or a reasearch paper on the history of a military unit (regiment, batallion, company, batery, etc.), military combination (division, brigade, group, file, etc.), military service (engineering, communication, medical, etc.) or subdivisions (company, group, etc.) of paramilitary organizations (Shooters Union, Scouts Association, Young Lithuania).
The aim of the methodical tool is to improve students' knowledge and give major guidelines on the writing of BA/ MA thesis or a reasearch paper on the history of a military unit (regiment, batallion, company, batery, etc.), military combination (division, brigade, group, file, etc.), military service (engineering, communication, medical, etc.) or subdivisions (company, group, etc.) of paramilitary organizations (Shooters Union, Scouts Association, Young Lithuania).
The aim of the methodical tool is to improve students' knowledge and give major guidelines on the writing of BA/ MA thesis or a reasearch paper on the history of a military unit (regiment, batallion, company, batery, etc.), military combination (division, brigade, group, file, etc.), military service (engineering, communication, medical, etc.) or subdivisions (company, group, etc.) of paramilitary organizations (Shooters Union, Scouts Association, Young Lithuania).
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.
A state of stalemate settled in on the frontlines of World War I, particularly on the Western Front, which was a result of defensive systems that had greatly improved at the beginning of the twentieth century. It was a trigger to develop new offensive techniques that would stir up the entrenched fronts of World War I. Mechanised corps, including tank units, was one of such newly introduced techniques. With the advent of a new type of weapon, the need had arisen to improve defence by reinforcing it with anti-tank systems. In the wake of the 1914–1918 war and with the mechanised forces rapidly developing in the interwar years, it became necessary to create motorised infantry mobility of which, in combination with mechanised units, had increased exponentially leading to an enhanced importance of anti-tank weapons in combat. The issue of anti-tank defence was also of major concern in the armed forces of interwar Lithuania. In view of the then geopolitical situation of Lithuania and taking into account the national defence plans, it was Poland, Germany and the Soviet Union that were deemed the key aggressors constituting a threat to Lithuania's sovereignty. An analysis of sources shows that the two latter states had highly developed concepts of mechanised armies, thereby making the issue of anti-tank defence even more important for the Lithuanian army. Hence, the aim of this research is to examine and estimate capabilities of the Lithuanian armed forces to maintain defence against the enemy's heavy (mechanised) forces by making an analysis of the provisions enshrined in the statutes of Lithuania's army, the reflections on the experiences of military conflicts between 1935 and 1940 in the ranks of the leadership of the Lithuanian army, and actual capabilities to conduct defence against mechanised forces of the hostile armies.
A state of stalemate settled in on the frontlines of World War I, particularly on the Western Front, which was a result of defensive systems that had greatly improved at the beginning of the twentieth century. It was a trigger to develop new offensive techniques that would stir up the entrenched fronts of World War I. Mechanised corps, including tank units, was one of such newly introduced techniques. With the advent of a new type of weapon, the need had arisen to improve defence by reinforcing it with anti-tank systems. In the wake of the 1914–1918 war and with the mechanised forces rapidly developing in the interwar years, it became necessary to create motorised infantry mobility of which, in combination with mechanised units, had increased exponentially leading to an enhanced importance of anti-tank weapons in combat. The issue of anti-tank defence was also of major concern in the armed forces of interwar Lithuania. In view of the then geopolitical situation of Lithuania and taking into account the national defence plans, it was Poland, Germany and the Soviet Union that were deemed the key aggressors constituting a threat to Lithuania's sovereignty. An analysis of sources shows that the two latter states had highly developed concepts of mechanised armies, thereby making the issue of anti-tank defence even more important for the Lithuanian army. Hence, the aim of this research is to examine and estimate capabilities of the Lithuanian armed forces to maintain defence against the enemy's heavy (mechanised) forces by making an analysis of the provisions enshrined in the statutes of Lithuania's army, the reflections on the experiences of military conflicts between 1935 and 1940 in the ranks of the leadership of the Lithuanian army, and actual capabilities to conduct defence against mechanised forces of the hostile armies.
A state of stalemate settled in on the frontlines of World War I, particularly on the Western Front, which was a result of defensive systems that had greatly improved at the beginning of the twentieth century. It was a trigger to develop new offensive techniques that would stir up the entrenched fronts of World War I. Mechanised corps, including tank units, was one of such newly introduced techniques. With the advent of a new type of weapon, the need had arisen to improve defence by reinforcing it with anti-tank systems. In the wake of the 1914–1918 war and with the mechanised forces rapidly developing in the interwar years, it became necessary to create motorised infantry mobility of which, in combination with mechanised units, had increased exponentially leading to an enhanced importance of anti-tank weapons in combat. The issue of anti-tank defence was also of major concern in the armed forces of interwar Lithuania. In view of the then geopolitical situation of Lithuania and taking into account the national defence plans, it was Poland, Germany and the Soviet Union that were deemed the key aggressors constituting a threat to Lithuania's sovereignty. An analysis of sources shows that the two latter states had highly developed concepts of mechanised armies, thereby making the issue of anti-tank defence even more important for the Lithuanian army. Hence, the aim of this research is to examine and estimate capabilities of the Lithuanian armed forces to maintain defence against the enemy's heavy (mechanised) forces by making an analysis of the provisions enshrined in the statutes of Lithuania's army, the reflections on the experiences of military conflicts between 1935 and 1940 in the ranks of the leadership of the Lithuanian army, and actual capabilities to conduct defence against mechanised forces of the hostile armies.
A state of stalemate settled in on the frontlines of World War I, particularly on the Western Front, which was a result of defensive systems that had greatly improved at the beginning of the twentieth century. It was a trigger to develop new offensive techniques that would stir up the entrenched fronts of World War I. Mechanised corps, including tank units, was one of such newly introduced techniques. With the advent of a new type of weapon, the need had arisen to improve defence by reinforcing it with anti-tank systems. In the wake of the 1914–1918 war and with the mechanised forces rapidly developing in the interwar years, it became necessary to create motorised infantry mobility of which, in combination with mechanised units, had increased exponentially leading to an enhanced importance of anti-tank weapons in combat. The issue of anti-tank defence was also of major concern in the armed forces of interwar Lithuania. In view of the then geopolitical situation of Lithuania and taking into account the national defence plans, it was Poland, Germany and the Soviet Union that were deemed the key aggressors constituting a threat to Lithuania's sovereignty. An analysis of sources shows that the two latter states had highly developed concepts of mechanised armies, thereby making the issue of anti-tank defence even more important for the Lithuanian army. Hence, the aim of this research is to examine and estimate capabilities of the Lithuanian armed forces to maintain defence against the enemy's heavy (mechanised) forces by making an analysis of the provisions enshrined in the statutes of Lithuania's army, the reflections on the experiences of military conflicts between 1935 and 1940 in the ranks of the leadership of the Lithuanian army, and actual capabilities to conduct defence against mechanised forces of the hostile armies.
It has been known for several decades that a constantly growing asymmetry of the military power between the US and their NATO allies complicates transatlantic security relations. If allies cannot communicate in military terms, the risk of political split appears. Therefore one of the main priorities is the necessity to ensure that the allies are able to make their substantial military contribution. Lithuania also contributes to it by taking part in missions together with its allies. Missions are of military (using weapons, executing military operations and performing police functions) and civil character (providing help in case of natural disasters, sending humanitarian aid to voluntary soldiers). This paper focuses mainly on military missions. The subject of the paper: The participation of Lithuania in foreign military missions. The relevance of the topic: More and more often articles appear in Lithuania and abroad criticising the participation of the Western countries in peace missions, including Afghanistan; casualties, moral validity of these missions and heavy expenses are questioned; a more and more prevailing idea of Neorealism is mentioned. The goals of the paper: • To introduce the main trends of the theories of international relations; • To analyse the participation of Lithuania in foreign military missions with reference to the theories; • To introduce a geopolitical context of the participation of Lithuania in foreign missions; • To review Lithuanian foreign military missions; • To discuss the perspectives of the participation of Lithuania in foreign military missions. The method of work: The work is carried out using a descriptive analytical method, a comparative method and the analysis of scientific literature. The aim of the paper: This papers aims to review the participation of Lithuania in peace missions, to discuss its political and military aspects, paying the greatest attention to theoretical aspects. Among many existing theories of international relations, Neorealism and Constructivism are the most appropriate ones to explain the participation of Lithuania in international missions. Although the main conceptions of those theories are contradictory, in Lithuania's case they complement one another. Supporting the power of the US, Lithuania operates in the field of Neorealism theory as well as a common system of values in line with Western countries (especially the US) operates in the field of Constructivism and historic experience with Russia. Since the international system is anarchic, the dominant countries are those having the greatest power. Therefore Lithuania's support of the superpower is an entirely logical behaviour. Moreover, Lithuania is linked with the US by the common identity, which was formed by the US consistent denial of Lithuania's occupation in 1940 and 1944, supporting the restoration of independence and providing help for Lithuanian emigrants. Therefore in Lithuania's case both theories should be applied in analysing the support for the US and NATO and the participation in their foreign military missions. The examination of Lithuania's foreign military missions should not be restricted to the theories of international relations. The geopolitical context, which has a great influence on the country's behaviour, should be taken into consideration as well. The historical context of relations is connected with the current behaviour and the attitude towards such countries as Russia and it also has influence on choosing allies and the support to the policy they execute, including the military one. Attention should also be paid to the reliability of the potential allies and the reality of threats, for instance, whether a real conflict with Russia is possible. Russia should be the starting point since it is the main factor which influences the choice and behaviour of Lithuania. It is impossible to analyse Lithuania's international policy and its participation in missions without taking into consideration Russia, which is the greatest and most powerful neighbour. This country owns some of the biggest natural resources and one of the most powerful armies with the arsenal of almost 4000 nuclear heads. Therefore its influence on Lithuania cannot be neglected. Russian threat is not unreal. Its current behaviour might raise serious concerns. Russian military doctrine, issued in 2000, claims that the possibility of a military conflict with any country or a bloc of countries is very slight and no country is considered as its potential enemy. The main current threats to Russian security and its territorial integrity are international terrorism, the spread of weapons of mass destruction and drug smuggling. Other threats are "territorial claims on Russian Federation" and "the expansion of military blocs and alliances which can endanger the security of Russian Federation". According to the military doctrine, Russia does not intend to fight with any country or a bloc of countries. However, it prepares for defence. At the press conference held at the end of January, Russian president Vladimir Putin once again noted that Russia has tested a new complex of ballistic missiles which is not owned by any other country. The warheads of those missiles can outfight any missile defence systems. The ballistic missiles have maneuvering heads. This can already be treated as the nuclear-weapon threat. Unconditional support of the US can be observed not only during the military missions, but also during military programs, such as the missile defence system and its dislocation in Europe. Lithuanian foreign policy has been traditionally oriented towards transatlantic relations and the consolidation of strategic partnership with the US. There is no doubt that such an attitude has been influenced by the US itself because currently it is the only power in the geopolitical arena which can influence Russia in the Baltic Sea region. The amplification of the US influence in the region, the neutralisation of new threats and a greater influence of Lithuania in foreign policy are the main factors that induce Lithuania to support Euro-Atlantism. Also, Lithuanian choice is influenced by the unwillingness to become the object of "exchange". It would become possible if the spheres of influence between Russia and the US or between the EU and Russia changed. It would be much more possible if the Lithuanian priority were Euro-continental security system. Inability to transform the EU and keep balance with Russia may lead Germany and France to the Russian zone of influence. It would be a threat to the independence of Lithuania. Because of these reasons Lithuania intends to limit its participation in ESDP. Officially it is stated as the intention to maintain transatlantic relations. However, it is not the only reason. ESDP is a step towards the federal model of the European Union which would limit the autonomy and decision-making of small countries. Lithuania is unwilling to become the province of the European Union, which, contrary to the NATO, is unable to provide security. Moreover, the participation in ESDP would require huge financial resources, which are allocated to NATO for the same purpose and therefore it is unreasonable to duplicate funds. There is also a problem of dual loyalty. Since the great EU countries and the US often come into conflict, it would become a problem to choose between NATO (the US) and ESDP (Germany, France). The participation of the US in the European defence system enables Lithuania to control political relations with other great countries – Germany and Russia. One more reason why Lithuania tends to support the US is that Germany and France neglect the concerns of small countries for the sake of their relations with Russia. Such behaviour is considered unreliable and therefore the priority is given to the US, since only trustworthy partners can remain in the security sphere. Before the Vilnius Ten supported the US in attacking Iraq, there was an opinion that after becoming a member of the European Union, Lithuania as well as other post-socialist countries would give Europe a sense of freedom. This idea became very relevant during the G. W. Bush visit to Vilnius when he supported and guaranteed security to post-soviet states intending to become the members of NATO, saying "You are needed in NATO". The Vilnius Ten soon proved this necessity but the opinion of the countries which assigned billions for their integration into the European Union and were against the war in Iraq was neglected. Soon after the war in Iraq, the US Congress approved the list of new candidates for NATO. G. W. Bush noted in his speech that those members proved their necessity not only by words but also by their actions. However, until the invasion of Iraq, the tension between the US, its ally Great Britain and France, Germany and Russia was so strong that, according to the US Secretary of Defence D. Rumsfeld, the Vilnius Ten position separated Europe into two parts - the Old and the New one. The reproach expressed by France that the Vilnius Ten lost a good opportunity to remain silent and German reaction towards the participation of Polish soldiers in a post-Hussein Iraq show that either France and Germany do not understand Central Europe or they simply seek for autocracy in the continental foreign policy and therefore a different position of "New Europe" countries is unhandy for them. Currently the dislocation of the US missile defence system is one of the leading issues in international meeting agenda. This issue is extremely important for Lithuania because its two strategic partners - the US and neighbouring Poland – are involved in it. Lithuania's position towards the missile defence system was, and still is, rather complicated. On the one hand, Lithuania must support its strategic allies and partners. On the other hand, it would worsen relations with Russia. A new defence project, National Missile Defence
