Abstract ▼

With the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis, more than a decade old term of hybrid warfare was brought back to life. The frequent usage of the term \"hybrid warfare\" on a global scale inconsequentially produced an alteration of the term\'s true meaning. In an attempt to define a hybrid war various aspects of power are being added, sometimes by mistake, which can be employed in a military manner. This paper will explore the concept of hybrid warfare in Ukraine on the premises of Russian military operations and their method of employing military force in the next generation of warfare. The main research subject represents the study of operational and tactical components of the military-political happenings on Crimea and in the region of Donbas, as well as the study of the modern approach in the deployment and utilization of military forces in the next generation of warfare. The altered visage of modern warfare, affected by various socio-economic and technological changes, also demands certain adjustments to military strategy and tactics in terms of force employment and how these efforts correlate with geopolitical goals and the manner in which they are accomplished. In the paper, the author will use a variety of primary and secondary sources in order to set a comprehensive theoretical foundation that will help us with the ongoing analysis of the Ukrainian war and the role of Russian armed forces in it. The goal of this study is to grasp and explain the changed concept of military force as well as to call attention to the dynamic nature of military strategy, which is constantly adjusting itself to the volatile character of war. The main findings of this paper are focused on a partial displacement of the Klauzewitzian centre of gravity, from higher strategic levels towards lower operational and tactical levels of military organization, as well as the fact that the Russian armed forces have managed to successfully reinvent itself after numerous political and economic hardships that have ensued after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Abstract ▼

The transformation of war, as a result of the overall social changes in the postmodern, reflects significant changes in its physiognomy. These changes could be observed by getting answers to fundamental and eternal questions about war – between whom it is fought, why it is waged and, lastly, how it is waged. In the case of the armed conflict in Syria, the answers to these questions indicate that the nature of the war has remained the same and that only its character has changed, especially with regard to a conceptual approach based on reducing the effectiveness of a military instrument of power and increasing others in achieving the ultimate strategic goals of the war. This disproves the claims of theorists and strategists, representatives of the theoretical direction of the “new wars”, who believe that the characteristics of the postmodern wars are fundamentally different from those of the modern era which are considered as “old” wars. The aim of the paper is to illustrate, in the example of the Syrian conflict, that the definitions of war in the form of armed violence and political nature remain firmly embedded in that part of the physiognomy of war that Klauzevic explains as objective or immutable.

Abstract ▼

Famous German sociologist and philosopher, Jürgen Habermas, often points out that we not only live in postmodern but in “post-secular society” as well. This post-secular society appears as a significant opposite to the society which we heard about several decades ago, and which was mostly secular or striving towards secularity. Almost all of the 20th century, and especially decades after World War II, was marked with stands that religion and the Holy are losing its significance in contemporary society. However, at the end of the 20th and especially at the beginning of the turbulent 21st century, we are witnessing the fact that religion is not defeated. More precisely, it did not lose its place both in private and public life. It is obvious that religion was “under the radar” for different anticipators from the 20th century, which proved that it is still a complex social phenomenon that cannot be easily explained nor predicted. How did religion come back from “nonsense” to the main stage of important contemporary social phenomena? What are the potentials of religion in causing, and what in the pacification of conflicts? What are the characteristics of religion-inspired conflicts, then and now? How contemporary monotheisms see the (just) war? These are some of the questions we tried to answer in this paper through the review of contemporary literature and content analysis. The author simultaneously analysed if numbers about the increase of believers in the world (absolute) and numbers in the percentage of faithful ones (relative) are valid indicators that religion returned in the context of former importance. Based on trends existing in this field during the last forty years, as well as on historical heritage left behind by contemporary monotheisms, the paper also presents a framework for a prognosis about the future of religion in the context of the upcoming conflicts.

Abstract ▼

The subject of this paper is to determine the relations between the European, Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian integration, especially their exclusive character and the turmoil in the European post-Soviet space. The paper concludes that the exclusive nature of the integration process, which has a value and a geopolitical dimension, encourages the USA, EU and Russia conflicts for control over this area and leads to the reopening of ethnic and territorial disputes (solutions for one represent deepening of crisis for the other stakeholders), remilitarization and a new arms race, the increased military presence of the USA and Russia in the region and further destabilization of the world and European order, especially the relationship between the USA-Russia-EU. The roots of these integrations are found at the end of the Cold War, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and the survival of Western economic and defence organizations that sought and still seek to expand to the post-Soviet space in order to create a universal liberal democratic world order despite Russian dissent. This work thus sheds light on the contradictions of keeping an open-door policy of the European and Euro-Atlantic integration, which causes the opposite effect in Russia – a sense of closing the door, the new isolation and restraint, creating new divisions in Europe. On the other hand, the contradiction that this analysis reveals is that Russia, while seeking equal treatment and respect for its interests by the West, is in fact expecting respect of its inequality compared to other European post-Soviet republics, de facto recognition of its right of veto to the post-Soviet republics integration and its special role in this region, which practically bolster further fears that these countries will be returned to the Russian sphere of influence or even a new Russian state. Of the several variables that have remained as a result of the breakup of the Soviet Union and affected the foreign policies of the post-Soviet states, the question of the type of integration became crucial because of its defence, geopolitical, economic and wider social effects.