Search

This paper analyzes and compares the impact of the 1968 Prague Spring on military and strategic thinking in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. A great change in the Czechoslovakian military caused Memorandum 68, a proposal of domestic military doctrine which consistently took into account the vital security interests of Czechoslovakia in international relations at that time. The document was mainly based on the inviolability of Czechoslovak territory and the right of its nations to defend their own existence regardless of the superpower interests of the Soviet Union. At the same time Yugoslavia began to develop its own doctrine of the General People's Defence and Social Self-Protection, which emphasized its total nature, creating the reality of the concept of a "nation in arms," which attached great importance to soldiers and the art of soldiering in Y ugoslavia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article "Russia in global geostrategic defense" by Lothar Schröter deals with the Ukraine conflict and the impact of NATO's eastward expansion on Russia's security interests. It discusses whether Russia's intervention preempted a possible massive offensive by Ukraine. The article describes the geostrategic upheaval currently being experienced by the world, and the struggle between the West, which seeks a unipolar world order, and Russia and China, which claim their equal place as great powers. The West is trying to weaken Russia in order to control its resources, while Russia and China are in global geostrategic defense. [Extracted from the article]

The goal of this paper is to focus on learning major divergences for understanding global human security and modern world order in the 21st century, with the strategic perspective of an integrated approach for peace and economy, considering current events. No global structure of peace can be stable and secure unless all parties recognize others' legitimate security interests. The best way for the major powers to begin to achieve that is to choose the path of mutual understanding and de-escalation over Ukraine and Taiwan. In the meanwhile, the Chinese Communist Party concluded that it could grow rich without giving up power, in fact it could buy off rebellion and rival America's strategic superiority. Whatever the outcome of the current crises, what is now clear is that Moscow and Beijing are not going to become like us any time soon, and we need to accept the regrettable reality that we are entering another period of strong divergence for global human security and world order. The ultimate problem we face today in EU is still our inability to solve most of the shared existential challenges we face quickly. But there is hope. Divergence Openness is the only way through which we will learn to get through global crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]