Questioning the “Sanctity” of long-term defense planning as practiced in Central and Eastern Europe

References

• Akubardia, T., 2010. Overview of the legislation facilitating the civil democratic oversight of armed forces in Georgia. In: T. Pataraia, ed. Democratic control over the Georgian armed forces since the august 2008 war. Geneva: Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces,
   Google Scholar
• Ball, N. and Le Roux, L., 2006. A model for good practice in budgeting for the military sector. In: W. Omitoogun and E. Hutchful, eds. Budgeting for the military sector in Africa: the process and mechanism of control. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
   Google Scholar
• Bender, B. and Herb, J., 2015. ‘War budget might be permanent “slush fund”, Politico. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/war-budget-might-be-permanent-slush-fund-116367.
   Google Scholar
• Boland, F., 2014. ‘Capability development’, briefing. Brussels: Defense Policy and Planning Division, NATO International Staff.
   Google Scholar
• Bulgaria, 2015. ‘Programme for the development of the defence capabilities of the Bulgarian armed forces 2020ʹ. Sofia: Council of Ministers.
   Google Scholar
• Croatia, 2006. Croatian armed forces long-term development plan 2006-2015. adopted in the Croatian parliament on 7 july 2006. published in the Official Gazette, No.81. Zagreb: Ministry of Defense,
   Google Scholar
• Croatia, 2013. Strategic defence review. Zagreb: Ministry of Defence.
   Google Scholar
• Donnelly, C., 1988. Red banner: the Soviet military system in peace and war. Coulsdon, Surrey: Jane’s Information Group.
   Google Scholar
• Enthoven, A.C. and Smith, K.W., 2005. How much is enough? shaping the defense program, 1961–1969. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
   Google Scholar
• Gates, R.M., 2014. Duty: memoirs of a secretary at war. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• Gogolewska, A., 2006. Problems confronting civilian democratic control in Poland. In: H. Born, et al., eds. Civil-military relations in Europe: learning from crisis and institutional change. New York: Routledge,
   Google Scholar
• Haynes, P.D., 2013. ‘American Naval thinking in the post-cold war era: the U.S. navy and the emergence of a maritime strategy, 1989–2007ʹ. Thesis (Ph.D.) Naval Postgraduate School.
   Google Scholar
• Hitch, C.J., 1967. Decision-making for Defense. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hitch, C.J. and McKean, R.N., 1960. The economics of defense in the nuclear age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hofstede, G., 2011. Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., and Minkov, M., 2010. Cultures and organizations: software of the mind. 3rd. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• A honvédelmi miniszter 33/2017. (VI. 30.) HM utasítása a honvédelmi minisztérium átalakításának 2017. évi egyes szervezési feladatairól és egyes honvédelmi miniszteri utasítások módosításáról [translation: 33/2017. (VI.30.) ’Order of the minister of defence on the organizational tasks of the reorganization of the ministry of defence in 2017 and on the amendments of certain defence ministerial orders’, 30 july 2017], http://www.kozlonyok.hu/kozlonyok/Kozlonyok/13/PDF/2017/7.pdf. The writer is grateful to Bence Nemeth for raising this point and providing the translation.
   Google Scholar
• Katič, A., 2016. ‘Increasing sSlovenia’s defence capacity’; strategic defence review 2016. Ljubljana: Ministry of Defence.
   Google Scholar
• Kordowski, M., et al., n.d. Defence resources management system in Visegrad group. Warsaw: National Centre for Strategic Studies (NCSS).
   Google Scholar
• Macedonia, January, 2014. Long-term development plan, 2014-2023. Skopje: Ministry of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• Magnus, H. and Larsen, K.K., 2012. Long-term defence planning: a comparative study of seven countries. In: Oslo File 5. Oslo: Institutt for forsvarsstudier,
   Google Scholar
• Maucione, S. 2015. ‘Carter scolds Navy Secretary over spending priorities’, Federal News Radio, https://federalnewsradio.com/defense/2015/12/carter-scolds-mabus-spending-priorities/
   Google Scholar
• Mintzberg, H., 1994. The rise and fall of strategic planning: reconceiving roles for planning, plans, planners. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Murumets, J., 2016. Estonian maritime security: executive summary. Tartu: Kaitseväe Ühendatud Õppeasutused.
   Google Scholar
• NATO, 2003. Handbook on Long Term Defence Planning, RTO technical report 69, AC/323(SAS-025)TP/41. Paris: Research and Technology Organisation.
   Google Scholar
• O’Rourke, R., 2017. ‘Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: background and Issues for Congress‘, RL32665. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
   Google Scholar
• Paszewski, T., 2016. Can Poland defend itself? Survival, 58 (2), 126–127. doi:10.1080/00396338.2016.1161907
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poland, 2017. The defense concept of the republic of Poland. Warsaw: Ministry of National Defense.
   Google Scholar
• Serbia, Strategic Planning Department, Defence Policy Sector. 2010. White paper on defence of the republic of Serbia. Belgrade: Ministry of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• Sherr, J., 2017. The militarization of Russian policy. Washington, DC: Transatlantic Academy. Paper Series No. 10.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, J., 2004. NATO and the Czech and Slovak republics: comparative study in civil-military relations. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Slovenia, 2009. Defence sector strategic review 2009 (DSSR): summary of key DSSR 2009 conclusions. In: No. 800-1/2009-189. Ljubljana: Ministry of Defence,
   Google Scholar
• Slovenia, 2010. Resolution on general long-term development and equipping programme of the Slovenian armed forces up to 2025. In: Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia no. 99/2010. Ljubljana: Ministry of Defence,
   Google Scholar
• Stojkovic, D. and Dahl, B.R., 2007. Methodology for long term defence planning. In: FFI-rapport 2007/00600. Kjeller: Norwegian Defence Research Establishment,
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Code title 10, § 10543 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 9 § 221. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (Pub. L. No. 100-180, Sec. 1203; Dec. 4, 1987). ‘Future-years defense program: submission to Congress; consistency in budgeting’.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. General Accounting Office, 1998. Executive guide: leading practices in capital decision-making. In: GAO/AIMD-99-32. Washington, D.C:
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2004. Future years defense program: actions needed to improve transparency of DoD’s projected resource needs. In: GAO-04-514. Washington, DC: GAO.
   Google Scholar
• Vance, G.C. and Hinkle, W., January, 2011. Best practices in defense resource management. IDA document D-4137. Washington, DC: Institute for Defense Analysis,
   Google Scholar
• The Voluntary Sector Knowledge Network, 2007. Leadership: strategic planning and strategic management. http://vskn.ca/lead/strategy.htm. accessed.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, L.M. and Epstein, S.B., 2017. Overseas contingency operations funding: background and status. In: R44519. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service,
   Google Scholar
• Young, T.-D., 2016a. Impediment to reform in European post-communist defense institutions: addressing the conceptual divide. Problems in post-communism, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10758216.2016.1220256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, T.-D., 2016b. Is PPBS applicable to European post-communist defense institutions’? RUSI journal, 161 (October/November 2016), 68–77. no. 5. doi:10.1080/03071847.2016.1253382
   Google Scholar
• Young, T.-D., 2016c. When programming trumps policy and plans: the case of the U.S. Department of the Navy. Journal of strategic studies, 39 (7), 2016. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01402390.2016.1176564?needAccess=true
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, T.-D., 2017a. Anatomy of post-communist European defense institutions: the mirage of military modernity. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Young, T.-D., 2017b. The failure of defense planning in Eeuropean communist legacy defense institutions: ascertaining causation and determining solutions. Journal of strategic studies, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402390.2017.1307743.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, T.-D., 2017c. Mission command: strategic implications—legacy concepts: a sociology of command in Central and Eastern Europe. Parameters, 47 (1), 31–42. https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/parameters/issues/Spring_2017/6_Young_MissionCommand-CentralAndEasternEurope.pdf
   Google Scholar