![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article explores the defense transformation processes during the two initial decades of the twenty-first century among the 11 former communist states that currently are members of both the European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The article introduces an analytical framework for systematic comparisons of states’ priorities regarding military strategy. Moreover, the article evaluates the influence of two intervening variables: (i) differences in relative power between middle powers and small states and (ii) differences in geographical exposure. Our findings suggest that differences related to these intervening variables correlate with differences in prioritized strategic ends, means, and ways.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflicts of interest are reported by the authors(s).
Notes
1 The 11 new allies are Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic (Czechia), Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
2 Aspects of the security and defense policy of the individual countries are most often to be found in academic journals with a specific focus on Central and Eastern Europe such as East European Politics and Societies, and The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Occasionally, articles exploring individual Central and East European countries can be found in “Western” journals such as Armed Forces & Society, and Contemporary Security Policy. From time to time, studies with a comparative approach are published. However, most often, these comparisons cover, as does M. Hadžić, Timotić, and P. Petrović (eds.), Security Policies in the Western Balkans (Belgrade: Belgrade Centre for Security Policy 2010), only a group of the Central and East European countries such as the Baltic States, the Visegrad Group, or the Balkans rather than all 11 new Allies explored in this article. Monographs going in-depth when analyzing the defense policy of individual Central and East European countries are rare. In addition, these projects, such as J. Zajac, Poland’s Security Policy – The West, Russia, and the Changing International Order (Basingstoke: Palgrave 2016), tend to focus on security policy rather than on strategy. So is also the case with most edited volumes. A. Péczeli (ed.), The Relations of Central European Countries with the United States (Budapest: Dialóg Campus 2019) focused, for example, on the relations of the Central European countries with the U.S. Moreover, in her volume, the countries are addressed individually. Other volumes covering several of the Central and East European countries also tend to approach them on an individual rather than on a collective level. Notably, some of these volumes contrast between the old and the new allies. The works of T. Lansford and B. Tashev (eds.), Old Europe, New Europe and the US: Renegotiating Transatlantic Security in the Post 9/11 Era (Abingdon: Routledge 2005) as well as R. Czulda and M. Madej Newcomers no More? – Contemporary NATO and the Future of the Enlargement from the Perspective of ‘Post-Cold War’ Members (Warsaw: International Relations Research Institute 2015) are such examples. Defense reform and military transformation covering some of the Central and East European countries are the most frequent approaches. A. Forster, T. Edmunds, and A. Cottey (eds.), The Challenge of Military Reform in Post-communist Europe (Basingstoke: Palgrave 2002) focused, for example, specifically on Post-communist Europe. Other works have included Central and East European countries alongside states from other regions when focusing on the phenomenon of transformation rather than on strategy. T. Edmunds and M. Malesic (eds.), Defence Transformation in Europe: evolving military roles (Amsterdam: IOS Press 2005), as well as T. Bruneau and H. Trinkunas Global Politics of Defense Reform (Basingstoke: Palgrave 2008) are both examples of this. Finally, N. Vanaga and T. Rostoks (eds.), Deterring Russia in Europe: Defence Strategies for Neighbouring States (Abingdon: Routledge 2019), focused on one of the aspects addressed in this article, deterring neighboring Russia. However, in their edited volume they include not only Central and East European countries but other states as well. Moreover, they address their cases individually and, in addition, not as part of studying the military strategies of former Eastern states becoming the new allies of both NATO and the EU.
3 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, ‘Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on security guarantees’ Moscow: Kremlin, 17 December 2021. https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790818/?lang=en. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, ‘Agreement on measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation and member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’ Moscow: Kremlin, 17 December 2021 https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790803/?lang=en&clear_cache=Y.
4 A. Lašas, European Union and NATO Expansion: Central and Eastern Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan 2010) pp. 8-12.
5 M. Hampton, ‘The historical significance of NATO’ in M. Slobodchikoff, D. Davis, and B. Stewart (eds.), The challenge to NATO: Global security and the Atlantic alliance (Lincoln, NE: Potomac Books 2021) pp. 59-60. This competition between Russia and the West also includes elements of contenting soft power strategies involving competing cultural values triggering nationalistic counter-reactions in some of the former communist states. For an in-depth study on this aspect of the conflict, see D. Davis and M. Slobodchikoff, Cultural Imperialism and the Decline of the Liberal Order: Russian and Western Soft Power in Eastern Europe (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books 2019).
6 For an extended argument on this issue, see H. Edström, D. Gyllensporre, and J. Westberg, Military Strategy of Small States. Responding to the External Shocks of the 21st Century (Abingdon: Routledge 2019) and H. Edström and J. Westberg, Military Strategy of Middle Powers: Competing for Security, Influence and Status in the 21st Century (Abingdon: Routledge 2020).
7 J. H. Matlary, European Union Security Dynamics (Basingstoke: Palgrave 2009) pp. 3, 24-25.
8 S. Diesen, ‘Mot et alliansintegrert forsvar’, in Ø. Østerud and J. H. Matlary (eds.), Mot et avnasjonalisert forsvar? (Oslo: Abstrakt forlag 2005) pp. 167-170. The British general Rubert Smith presented an argument along similar lines in his study The Utility of Force: The Art of Warfare in the Modern World (New York: Alfred a Knopf 2007).
9 T. Edmunds, ‘A New European Security Environment? The Evolution of Military Roles in Post-Cold War Europe’, in T. Edmunds and M. Malesic (eds.), Defence Transformation in Europe: Evolving Military Roles (Amsterdam: IOS Press 2005) pp. 10-11 and 14.
10 J. Simon, ‘NATO’s Membership Action Plan and Defense Planning’, Problems of Post-Communism, May/June 2001 pp 29-31.
11 J. Karlsbergs, ‘It is better to be prepared for a war that never comes than to rely on a peace that did not last’ in M. Slobodchikoff, D. Davis, and B. Stewart (eds.), The Challenge to NATO: Global Security and the Atlantic Alliance (Lincoln, NE: Potomac Books 2021) p. 192.
12 M. Hampton, ‘The historical significance of NATO’ p. 61.
13 R. Betts, ‘Is strategy an illusion?’, International Security 25(2) (2000) p. 5.
14 C. Gray, The Strategy Bridge: Theory for Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2010) p. 18.
15 See also A. Lykke, ‘Toward an Understanding of Military Strategy’, in Arthur Lykke (ed.), Military Strategy: Theory and Application (Carlisle: US Army War College 1989) and A. Herberg-Rothe, ‘Clausewitz’s Concept of Strategy–Balancing Purpose, Aims and Means’, Journal of Strategic Studies 37(6-7) (2014)
16 K. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press) pp. 126-127.
17 H. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations (New York: McGraw-Hill 2006) pp. 29-30.
18 J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (London: WW Norton 2001) pp. 2-3.
19 P. Jakobsen, ‘Small states, big influence: The overlooked Nordic influence on the civilian ESDP’, Journal of Common Market Studies 47(1) (2009).
20 See, for example, C. Holbraad, Middle Powers in International Politics (London: Macmillan 1984) and H. Bull, The Anarchical Society – A Study of Order in World Politics (London: Macmillan 1995).
21 D. W. Larson, T.V. Paul, and W. Wohlforth, ‘Status and World Order’, in T.V. Paul, D. W. Larson, and W. Wohlforth (eds.), Status in World Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press 2014) pp. 7-8. For further discussion on status see, for example, R. Schweller, ‘Realism and the Present Great Power System’, in E. Kapstein and M. Mastanduno (eds.), Unipolar Politics (New York: Columbia University Press 1999), D. Larson and A. Shevchenko, ‘Status Seekers. Chinese and Russian Responses to US Primacy’, International Security 34(4) (2010), T. Volgy, R. Corbetta, K. Grant, and R. Baird (eds.), Major Powers and the Quest for Status in International Politic. (New York: Palgrave 2011), W. Wohlforth, ‘Unipolarity Status Competition and Great Power War’ in J. Ikenberry, M. Mastanduno, and W. Wohlforth (eds.), International Relations Theory and the Consequences of Unipolarity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2011), W. Thompson ‘Status Conflict, Hierarchies, and Interpretation Dilemmas’, in T.V. Paul, D. W. Larson, and W. Wohlforth (eds.), Status in World Politics and J. Renshon, Fighting for Status (Princeton: Princeton University Press 2017).
22 P. V. Jakobsen, J. Ringsmose and H. L. Saxi, ‘Prestige-Seeking Small States’, European Journal of International Security 3(2) (2018), J. Ångström, ‘Contribution Warfare: Sweden’s Lessons from the War in Afghanistan’, Parameters 50(4) (2020).
23 On the possibility of pursuing different kinds of ends simultaneously, see S. Tangredi, ‘Assessing New Missions’, in H. Binnendijk (ed.), Transforming America’s Military (Washington DC: National Defense University Press 2002).
24 J. Collins, Military Strategy: Principles, Practices, and Historical Perspectives (Washington, DC: Brassey’s 2002).
25 A. Tellis, J. Bially, C. Layne, and M. McPherson, Measuring national power in the postindustrial age (Santa Barbara, CA: Rand 2001).
26 B. Posen, ‘Command of the Commons’, International Security 28(1) (2003) p. 18.
27 H. Edström and J. Westberg, Military Strategy of Middle Powers: Competing for Security, Influence and Status in the 21st Century (Abingdon: Routledge 2020).
28 B. Posen, ‘Command of the Commons’; J. Vance, ‘Tactics without Strategy, or why the Canadian Forces do not Campaign’ in A. English, D. Gosselin, H. Coombs, and L. Hickey (eds.), The Operational Art: Canadian Perspectives (Kingston: Canadian Defence Academy Press 2005), S. Brooks and W. Wohlforth, ‘The Rise and Fall of Great Powers in the Twenty-First Century’ International Security 40(3) (2016), J. Ångström, ‘Contribution Warfare’.
29 For additional interpretations of this element of strategy, see, for example, B. Buzan, An Introduction to Strategic Studies (New York: St. Martin´s Press 1987), L. Freedman, ‘The Revolution in Strategic Affairs’ Adelphi Papers, 38(3) (1998), C. Gray, Modern Strategy (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999).
30 H. Edström and J. Westberg, Military Strategy of Middle Powers.
31 See, for example, G. Rose, ‘Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy’, World Politics 51(1) (1998), R. Schweller, ‘Unanswered Threats: A Neoclassical Realist Theory of Underbalancing’, International Security 29(2) (2004), B. Rathbun, ‘A Rose by Any Other Name: Neoclassical Realism as the Logical and Necessary Extension of Structural Realism’, Security Studies 17(2) (2008).
32 J. Legro and A. Moravcsik, ‘Is Anybody Still a Realist?’, International Security 24(2) (1999).
33 See, for example, A. Baker Fox, The Power of Small States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1959); D. Vital, The Inequality of States (Oxford: Calderon Press 1967); R. Rothstein, Alliances and Small Powers (New York: Columbia University Press 1968); C. Holbraad, Middle Powers in International Politics, M. Wight, Power Politics (Harmondsworth: Pelican Books/RUSI 1986); B. Gilley and A. O’Neil (eds.), Middle Powers and the Rise of China (Washington DC: Georgetown University Press 2014).
34 On the contested nature of the middle power concept, see A. Chapnick, ‘The Middle Power’, Canadian Foreign Policy Journal 7(2) (1999); E. Jordaan, ‘The Concept of Middle Power in International Relations: Distinguishing between Emerging and Traditional Middle Powers’, Politikon 30(2) (2003); D. Cooper, ‘Challenging Contemporary Notions of Middle Power Influence: Implications of the Proliferation Security Initiative for “Middle Power Theory”’, Foreign Policy Analysis 7(3) (2011); J. Manicom and J. Reeves, ‘Locating Middle Powers in International Relation Theory’, in B. Gilley and A. O’Neil (eds.) Middle Powers and the Rise of China (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press 2014); A. Patience, ‘Imagining Middle Powers’, Australian Journal of International Affairs 68(2). For surveys on trends in small state research and various approaches to defining small states, see I. Neumann and S. Gstöhl, ‘Lilliputians in Gulliver’s World?’, in C. Ingebritsen, I. Neumann, S. Gstöhl, and J. Beyer (eds.), Small States in International Relations (Reykjavik: University of Iceland Press 2006) and H. Edström, D. Gyllensporre, and J. Westberg, Military Strategy of Small States. Responding to the External Shocks of the 21st Century (Abingdon: Routledge 2019).
35 A. Carr, ‘Is Australia a Middle Power? A Systematic Impact Approach’, Australian Journal of International Affairs 68(1) (2014) pp. 71-72.
36 I. Neumann and S. Gstöhl, ‘Lilliputians in Gulliver’s World?’.
37 H. Edström and J. Westberg Military strategy of middle powers, pp. 20-27.
38 J. Manicom and J. Reeves, ‘Locating Middle Powers in International Relation Theory’.
39 IMF, World Economic Outlook Database 2021.
40 SIPRI Military Expenditure Database 2021.
41 C. Gray, Strategy and History. Essays on Theory and Practice (Abingdon: Routledge 2006); H. Morgenthau. Politics Among Nations, C. Layne, ‘This Time It’s Real: The End of Unipolarity and the ‘Pax Americana’’’, International Studies Quarterly 56(1) (2012); J. Mearsheimer, The Great Delusion (New Haven: Yale University Press 2018).
42 C. Gray, The Future of Strategy (Cambridge: Polity Press 2015) p. 84.
43 For an extended analysis of the military strategies of the 11 new allies see, H. Edström and J Westberg, The Military Strategies of the New European Allies. A Comparative Study (Abingdon: Routledge 2023).
44 See, for example, H. Edström, Hur Styrs Försvarsmakten? – Politisk Och Militär Syn På Försvarsdoktrin Under 1990-talet (Umeå: Umeå University 2003).
45 Bulgarian Council of Ministers (CM), Updated Plan for Organizational Build-up and Modernization of the Armed Forces 2008; Bulgarian Parliament (NA) National Security Strategy of the Republic of Bulgaria 2011, pp. 30-31; Croatian Ministry of Defense (MoD) Strategic Defence Review 2005, p. 12; Croatian MoD, Strategic Defence Review 2013; Lithuanian NA National Security Strategy 2002, p. 3; Lithuanian NA National Security Strategy 2012 p. 4; Slovakian National Council (NC), Security Strategy of the Slovak Republic 2001; Slovakian NC, Defence Strategy of the Slovak Republic 2005, p. 3.
46 Estonian Government, National Security Concept 2004 p. 3; Estonian MoD National Defence Strategy 2011, p. 5; Latvian MoD, Report on State Defence Policy and Armed Forces Development 2004, pp. 8-9; Latvian NA, National Security Concept 2011, p. 2.
47 Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) Report on the Foreign Policy of the Czech Republic 2004, p. 291; Czech MoD White Paper on Defence 2011; Hungarian MoFA, National Security Strategy 2012, p. 7; Hungarian MoD, National Military Strategy 2012. p. 6 and 17; Polish National Security Bureau (NSB) National Security Strategy 2007, p. 4-6 and 10; Polish NSB National Security Strategy 2014. p. 10; Slovenian MoD, Strategic Defence Review 2004, p. 17; Slovenian Government, National Security Strategy 2019, p. 6.
48 Romanian President, National Security Strategy 2001, p. 4; Romanian President National Security Strategy 2007, p. 3.
49 Romanian MoD, Romanian Defence (2013).
50 Croatian MoD, Strategic Defence Review 2005, pp. 18-20; Slovenian MoD, Strategic Defence Review 2004, pp. 35-36; Slovenian MoD, General Long-Term Development and Equipping Programme of the Slovenian Armed Forces up to 2025, (2011) p. 36. Regarding the slow modernization process of the armed forces in Croatia and Slovenia, see country chapters in International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), Military Balance 2018, (London: Routledge 2018).
51 Slovakian MoD, White Paper on Defence (2013) pp. 13 and 17.
52 Czech MoD, Defence Strategy of the Czech Republic (2017) p. 13.
53 SIPRI, Military Expenditure Database (2021).
54 Estonian MoD, Long Term Defence Development Plan 2009 – 2018, (2009) pp. 9-10.
55 Estonian MoD, National Defence Development Plan 2013 – 2022 (2013).
56 Estonian MoD, Cyber Security Strategy (2014).
57 Latvian MoD, Report on State Defence Policy and Armed Forces Development (2004).
58 Latvian NA, National Security Concept (2005) p. 3.
59 Latvian MoD, State Defence Concept (2012) p. 6.
60 Ibid p. 3; SIPRI, Military Expenditure Database (2021).
61 Lithuanian MoD, Guidelines for 2012-2017 (2012).
62 Polish MoD, National Defence Strategy (2009) p. 12.
63 Polish MoD, White Paper on Defence (2013) p. 205.
64 IISS Military Balance 2020, (London: Routledge 2020) pp. 135 and 163.
65 Regarding Hungary’s military capacities, see country chapter in IISS Military Balance for the years 2005, 2013, and 2018. Regarding the government’s perceived need to pursue a modernization of the armed forces, see Hungarian MoD, National Military Strategy 2012, p. 1 and Hungarian MoFA National Security Strategy 2020, p. 5.
66 Romanian MoD, Romanian Defence (2013); Romanian MoD, White Paper on Defense (2017) p. 34.
67 Slovakian MoD, White Paper on Defence (2013) pp. 17-18.
68 Polish NSB, National Security Strategy (2007) pp. 10-12; Polish MoD, National Defence Strategy (2009) p. 6. Notably, all services have participated in NATO-led operations. Polish military has also contributed to several EU-led missions (Concordia, Althea, EUFOR Tchad/RCA, EUFOR RD Congo, and EU Training Mission Mali) as well as to UN-led operations (UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), and UN Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT)) Moreover, Polish armed forces have participated in the US-led operations Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Iraqi Freedom. See Polish MoD White Paper on Defence 2013, p. 50.
69 Polish Government, Agreement on enhanced defense cooperation with the USA (2020).
70 Polish MoD, White Paper on Defence (2013) p. 15.
71 Hungarian MoFA, National Security Strategy (2020) p. 5 and country chapter in IISS Military Balance 2013 and 2018.
72 Polish NSB, National Security Strategy (2007) pp. 2, 8, and 10.
73 Lithuanian MoD, White Paper on Lithuanian Defence Policy (2006).
74 Estonian Government, National Security Concept (2004) p. 6.
75 See relevant country chapter in IISS Military Balance for 2000; 2010; 2020.
76 IISS Military Balance 2000; 2020.
77 Romanian President, National Security Strategy (2001) p. 23; Slovakian NC, Defence Strategy of the Slovak Republic (2001) p. 3.
78 Estonian MoD, Long Term Defence Development Plan 2009 – 2018 (2009) p. 9.
79 Estonian Government National Security Concept 2017, p. 11; Estonian MoD, National Defence Development Plan 2013 – 2022 (2013); Estonian MoD, Cyber Security Strategy (2014); Estonian MoD, National Defence Development Plan 2017 – 2026 (2017); Latvian MoD, National Defense Concept (2016); Latvian NA, National Security Concept (2020); Lithuanian MoD, Guidelines for 2016-2021 (2015) p. 3; Lithuanian NA National Security Strategy (2017) p. 7; Lithuanian MoD, White Paper on Lithuanian Defence Policy (2017), p. 12.
80 Czech MoD, Defence Strategy of the Czech Republic (2017) p. 13.
81 Romanian NA, White Paper on Defense (2016) pp. 32-33; Romanian MoD, Military Strategy (2016); Romanian President, National Defense Strategy (2020) p. 14.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Håkan Edström
Håkan Edström is an active-duty lieutenant colonel in the Swedish Army, associate professor in Political Science, and senior lecturer in War Studies at the Swedish Defence University, Stockholm, as well as professor in Military Strategy at the Norwegian Air Force Academy, Trondheim. His research focuses on military strategy. Among his recently published monographs are Military Strategy of Great Powers – Managing Power Asymmetries & Structural Changes in the 21st Century (Routledge, 2022), and Military Strategies of the New European Allies – A Comparative Study (Routledge, 2023). He is currently working on two monographs, one on military strategy among nations and another on NATO’s new posture in Northern Europe, respectively.
Jacob Westberg
Jacob Westberg is an associate professor in War Studies and Lecturer in Security Policy and Strategy at the Swedish Defence University. His research focuses on comparative strategy and Sweden’s defence and security policy. His recent publications include Military Strategies of the New European Allies – A Comparative Study (Routledge, 2023), ”How small states manage to stay out of wars: Explaining Sweden’s 200 Years of Peace” in Nevra Biltekin, Leos Müller, & Magnus Petersson’s 200 Years of Peace: New Perspectives on Modern Swedish Foreign Policy, (Berghahn, 2022) and Military Strategy of Great Powers – Managing Power Asymmetries & Structural Changes in the 21st Century (Routledge, 2022).