A Comparative Perspective to the Development of Warfare a Luttwakian Approach to the General and Finnish Paradigms of War
POKKINEN, PANU (2005)
Tässä tietueessa ei ole kokotekstiä saatavilla Treposta, ainoastaan metadata.
POKKINEN, PANU
2005
Valtio-oppi - Political Science
Yhteiskuntatieteellinen tiedekunta - Faculty of Social Sciences
Hyväksymispäivämäärä
2005-04-11Tiivistelmä
Hakutermit:
Strategy, war, warfare, military preparation, Finland, defence policy, security policy, threat, paradigm of war, Luttwak, Neoclausewitz.
The purpose of this master’s thesis is to bring forward the general paradigm of war in order to facilitate the evaluation of the Finnish paradigm of war, and also to enlighten how the Finnish decisions correspond to the general doctrine.analyse.
The theoretical framework is based on the research tradition of philosophical science within the area of international relations. Moreover, the research leans mainly on the Neoclausewitzian tradition and for some parts on the futuristic ideology. Clausewitzian theory is introduced in order to include the character of international relations and more accurately, political realism, to the study. Edward N. Luttwak represents Neoclausewitzian theory at it’s best. The objective is to compare Finnish and general paradigms of war. The paradigm is constructed by using the theory of Luttwak’s paradoxical logic in it’s five levels and two dimensions of general theory of strategy. In this study the paradigm of war is understood so that it constructs of the levels of strategy excluded the level of grand strategy, and of the threats that countries are preparing for.
There appears that globally warfare is going through a radical change. New threats have challenged military planning and preparation. Turning new concepts into capabilities and meeting the new challenges requires adapting leadership, doctrine, education, training, organisations and materiel to meet the high tempo and high technology demands posed by these new concepts, in every level of strategy. It should be noted that mental and moral are the levels, where the fourth generation asymmetric warfare is decided.
There also appears that the Finnish foreign and security policy orientation have remained unchanged since the country acceded the European Union in 1995. Finland sees that there remains a slight possibility that a traditional war could pose a threat to it’s sovereignty. Thus, in oppose to general conventional evaluations, Finland still prepares itself for this traditional threat which due to it’s geo-strategic location is deeply rooted in it’s defence doctrines, as well as for the threats that are prevailing within the framework of general paradigm of war. At the technical level of strategy the significance of full spectrum dominance will be the key characteristic for the 21st century, and information superiority plays a more essential role in operational concepts. The Finnish Defence Forces focus on the development of the Information warfare capability.
From these arguments the thesis suggests that the Finnish paradigm of war is currently two-folded: part of it follows the general guidelines while the other part persists on holding on to the history. At the technical level the Finnish development follows the general guidelines, but in the other levels of strategy, the practise more or less profoundly differs from the mainstream development. Presently the dissimilarity can be even more clearly seen as Finland’s neighbouring countries, especially Sweden, are adopting their military forces to solely respond to the new threats. It is impossible to predict, whether the Finnish decision will prove to be right or wrong in the long run. However, it can be argued that the military preparation should be done on the basis of possibilities, not on the basis of probabilities.
Strategy, war, warfare, military preparation, Finland, defence policy, security policy, threat, paradigm of war, Luttwak, Neoclausewitz.
The purpose of this master’s thesis is to bring forward the general paradigm of war in order to facilitate the evaluation of the Finnish paradigm of war, and also to enlighten how the Finnish decisions correspond to the general doctrine.analyse.
The theoretical framework is based on the research tradition of philosophical science within the area of international relations. Moreover, the research leans mainly on the Neoclausewitzian tradition and for some parts on the futuristic ideology. Clausewitzian theory is introduced in order to include the character of international relations and more accurately, political realism, to the study. Edward N. Luttwak represents Neoclausewitzian theory at it’s best. The objective is to compare Finnish and general paradigms of war. The paradigm is constructed by using the theory of Luttwak’s paradoxical logic in it’s five levels and two dimensions of general theory of strategy. In this study the paradigm of war is understood so that it constructs of the levels of strategy excluded the level of grand strategy, and of the threats that countries are preparing for.
There appears that globally warfare is going through a radical change. New threats have challenged military planning and preparation. Turning new concepts into capabilities and meeting the new challenges requires adapting leadership, doctrine, education, training, organisations and materiel to meet the high tempo and high technology demands posed by these new concepts, in every level of strategy. It should be noted that mental and moral are the levels, where the fourth generation asymmetric warfare is decided.
There also appears that the Finnish foreign and security policy orientation have remained unchanged since the country acceded the European Union in 1995. Finland sees that there remains a slight possibility that a traditional war could pose a threat to it’s sovereignty. Thus, in oppose to general conventional evaluations, Finland still prepares itself for this traditional threat which due to it’s geo-strategic location is deeply rooted in it’s defence doctrines, as well as for the threats that are prevailing within the framework of general paradigm of war. At the technical level of strategy the significance of full spectrum dominance will be the key characteristic for the 21st century, and information superiority plays a more essential role in operational concepts. The Finnish Defence Forces focus on the development of the Information warfare capability.
From these arguments the thesis suggests that the Finnish paradigm of war is currently two-folded: part of it follows the general guidelines while the other part persists on holding on to the history. At the technical level the Finnish development follows the general guidelines, but in the other levels of strategy, the practise more or less profoundly differs from the mainstream development. Presently the dissimilarity can be even more clearly seen as Finland’s neighbouring countries, especially Sweden, are adopting their military forces to solely respond to the new threats. It is impossible to predict, whether the Finnish decision will prove to be right or wrong in the long run. However, it can be argued that the military preparation should be done on the basis of possibilities, not on the basis of probabilities.