Search

The democratisation of national defence policies and systems plays a vital role in making any country more democratic. The democratic transition of this sector in Slovenia and Montenegro has experienced a challenging reform process and it is now time for reflection. This paper aims to identify the main characteristics and issues of the democratisation process in the field of national defence in both countries and, by comparing them, to look for key similarities and differences. The paper argues and confirms that the Slovenian and Montenegrin national defence and security systems were initially faced with serious post-socialist democratic deficits, but gradual democratisation then brought drastic improvements to the quality of their democracy. The process of joining NATO and the change from a military threat perception to a non-military threat perception created space for many reforms. Greatest steps forward in democratisation in both countries entailed nominating civilian defence ministers, having a reasonable number of civilian defence experts involved in the military business, establishing working parliamentary monitoring committees, reducing defence budgets and reallocating funding to other sectors. Progress was also observed in reducing the total number of soldiers, establishing a fully professional armed force, assuring that women in the armed forces were properly represented and increasing the deployment of soldiers to foreign stabilisation operations in a sign of becoming security providers.

The Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), on the basis of which the EU builds its defence identity, has a broad spectrum. It focuses not only on the defence component of the CSDP, but also on associated areas such as defence industry and market, defence research and development, and supports them with related legislation and various policy and financial instruments. On the one hand, this prevents the issue of European defence from being easily confined. On the other hand, this reflects the robustness of the EU’s approach to European defence and its willingness to mobilize all available resources. The article describes the evolution of European defence, its major milestones and actors, related processes and rules, and the key tools that are now largely concentrated under the umbrella of the CSDP. Current issues of European defence, including scenarios of its possible future development, are also addressed, as well as the contribution of the Czech Republic.

The research described in this paper was conducted in the framework of institutional research project Strategic Alternatives (STRATAL) within the Centre for Security and Military Strategic Studies of University of Defence, The Czech Republic. Article assesses the development of Czech Defence policy in 2017 and first half of 2018. Authors analyse key change drivers in external environment (security threats, EU strategic autonomy, transatlantic link). In second step authors evaluate measures taken in political, military, administrative, economical and societal domain in response to key change drivers and highlight related risks to effective defence policy formulation and implementation.

The research described in this paper was conducted in the framework of institutional research project Strategic Alternatives (STRATAL) within the Centre for Security and Military Strategic Studies of University of Defence in Brno, the Czech Republic. The main objective of this contribution is to assess the evolution of the Czech defence policy (CDP) since the last summer 2016. The main impetuses for the CDP evolution were provided by the NATO Summit in Warsaw, new European Global Strategy including the ambition to enhance defence cooperation among the EU member states and the pattern of dynamics in our security environment. The authors analysed the key change drivers (KCDs) and measures taken in political, military, administrative, economical and societal domain in order to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the defence policy. Finally, the authors offer several recommendations to enhance the responsiveness and preparedness of the Czech defence system and the Armed Forces both in short- and long-term time span.

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.

The paper assesses the conceptual framework for Czech defence policy formulation in the wake of a rapid change in its security environment after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014 and the subsequent Russian support for separatists in Ukraine’s eastern provinces and growing instability in the Middle East and North Africa. The article examines key measures taken in the political, military, administrative, economical and societal domains in order to evaluate the overall effectiveness of Czech defence policy. Finally, the authors offer several strategic level recommendations to enhance responsiveness and preparedness of the Czech defence system and Armed Forces as one of its most significant components both in short- and long-term perspective.

This paper aims to enrich professional discussion on future shape of the Army of the Czech Republic (ACR) and is linked to the preceding research and publishing activities of members of the Centre for Security and Military Strategic Studies (CBVSS) at the University of Defence. In its first part, it performs a historical tour to the year 2012 and highlights the reasons that the former leadership of the ACR led to the start of construction work on the concept of ACR (KVAČR). Briefly describes the interconnection and the hierarchy of individual conceptual and strategic documents, the procedure works on them and summarizes the arguments supporting the need of KVAČR as such. The next section brings potential methodological approaches to the preparation of this document, using the method of the “9S”, including practical examples, it renumbers basic strategic assumptions and priorities in various stages, bordered by years 2020 and 2025 as a prerequisite for formulating strategies for achieving this specific goal. Within the document, there is a short excursion into the field of long-term planning for major areas of skills, using their description of DOTMLPFI functional areas, including an example of using this methodology in project preparation of program funding. The recommendations formulated in the article are based on the authors’ best experiences with the preparation of documents of a similar type in the years 2003-2013, the recommendations of experts from the broader security community of the Czech Republic, and recommendations of the Alliance. As such, it has been passed to the KVAČR processors at level of the General Staff of ACR over the years 2013-2014.

Contemporary Developments in UK Defence Policy: Their Origins and Strategic Consequences. In 2010, in the face of budgetary constraints, the British coalition government embarked upon a new review of strategy comprising a National Security Strategy and a Strategic Defence and Security Review. This article examines the 2010 strategy review (the NSS together with the SDSR) and the reasons for its publication, and aims to analyze continuity and change vis-à-vis Labour's defence policy and to evaluate its implications for the United Kingdom's future defence posture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Defense & Strategy / Obrana a strategie is the property of Institute for Strategic Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)