The scientific movement of strategic culture appears in several generations of studies. In contrast to realism, which sees states' behaviour solely as a consequence of opportunities and constraints arising from the material environment, the concept of strategic culture takes into account the influences of culture, ideas and norms that determine the motivations of states and their leaders. The research approach used in this PhD thesis is based on the first generation of strategic culture, which considers strategic culture as a context and an essential component of behaviour. The chosen approach does not deny (exclude) realist assumptions, but rather places them in a broader cultural-historical context, in a complementary way. The dissertation focuses on defence dimension of security of superpower behaviour in armed conflicts and security crises where no direct use of military force has taken place. Historical experiences in the field of defence and security, which are evident from the study of past behaviour, are an integral part of contemporary strategic cultures of states. The study of strategic culture is limited to the USA, the Russian Federation (RF), the Soviet Union (SU) until 1991 and the People's Republic of China (PRC), which enjoy the international status of military superpowers. The three states have achieved their international status of superpowers through different paths, resulting from different strategic cultures. Contemporary, official security documents of three studied states do not fully reflect their strategic cultures, nor do they necessarily form the basis for their behaviour. Finally, strategic culture is a scientifically relevant concept that successfully explains the defence dimension of security behaviour of states. In addition, the research concept of strategic culture itself, which is used in the PhD thesis, is a contribution to science. The dissertation opens up a new dimension in conflictology through the study of behaviour of the USA, the SU/RF and the PRC in the armed conflicts under consideration between 1946 and 2022, and the explanation of behaviour of the aforementioned superpowers through strategic culture prism.
|