In 2014, we started to work on new public policy proposals with the goal of substantially increasing international security. These pages are dedicated to present results in a field of foreign policy and defence suitable for small country. New proposals are based on the following:
Searching and promoting universal values for strengthening peaceful cooperation and development among nations. They can be used in solving crisis situations for identifying what actions only "adds fuel to the fire" producing more violence, and what measures have the potential to bring success. We believe that lack of moral values stay behind worsening world security in the first place.
Protection of life has to be considered as one of the most important value principle. Currently widely used instruments of actively killing opponents to achieve something cannot be tolerated at all in international policy in a same way that that they are not tolerated in domestic public relations. It needs to be understood that such violence cannot achieve goals of peace and stability in the long run, but only fuel existing tensions and conflicts. The only exception is defence, when taking life of the attacker is inevitable for saving life of someone else. But never as a form of retaliation or "punishment". Any such actions, wether done by enemies of allies, have to be regarded as act of terrorism, putting at risk lives of innocent people.
Such agreement should not be difficult to achieve in an atmosphere of trust, since no government wants to be attacked from outside, and people in general also want to leave in peace. That is why the atmosphere of trust have to be established at the first place. In a way "we tolerate your domestic policy, believe in your good intentions although do not always understand it, if you will only do the same". In international policy this equals to the ban of one government to attack another. And any defamatory information harming the reputation of foreign government shall be considered as attack or harmful propaganda and shall be banned too. It needs to be understood that it is very difficult to judge situation from outside objectively. And also that it is always the task of nation to form conditions and rules where they live, which is also best equipped for changing it towards the better - if foreign military forces are not engaging.
New defence strategy. One of the indicators that protection of life and attack bans are not respected in international policies is that the advanced states and superpowers put lots of efforts in building capacities for inducing superior lethal strikes far away from their home territories. Despite the fact, that the home defence policy would be more efficient. Infrastructure of classical armies (barracks, armed vehicles, helicopters, planes, etc.) needs costly protection. One small hand-arm can now destroy large and expensive military equipment. Such capacities can be useful only in peace corps forces whose actions are strictly regulated in order to avoid harm to the population where they would operate.
Our experience show that even small countries have chances protecting themselves against much larger enemies. No benefits from attacking such country can possibly compensate costs of doing that, especially when loss of reputation is counted too. Experience from Afghanistan, Vietnam, current Ukrajine, etc. shows how difficult is to win over well established defence. And that is not all. Military combat or killing the enemy is neither the only possibility of effective resistance, nor it is suitable on every case. Why? Because simply respecting and demonstrating high moral values always wins over the strongest military power at the end. Known examples are successful passive resistance campaigns of MK Gandhi in South Africa and India, or the civil rights campaign in USA. That is why wars of conquest cannot be successful in the long run, they must bring harm to the aggressor sooner or later.
Another example demonstrating that the military resistance is not always the best solution is the invasion and following occupation of Czechoslovakia by Soviet army. There was no chance of the military resistance success. It would only bring thousands of deaths, destroyed cities, ruined economy and perhaps also destroyed lives or bring post-traumatic stress disorders and further fall of moral values of many people, exposed to the horrors of war crimes. But even with no active resistance Soviet army lost at the end - it have to pull back 20 years later. And the success of Soviet rule over Czechoslovak people during those 20 years could only be achieved indirectly, through imperfect local population, among which many corrupted individuals, forming the army of secret service and police officers and collaborators.
That is not to say that the passive resistance is always the best solution or the military capacities would be useless. Every country have to build defence capacities against possible aggressors and use them when necessary to protect borders in the first case. We can demonstrate it on another example in Czechoslovakia, when not protecting Sudetes against Nazi Germany, showed later as grave mistake, not talking about the infamous 1938 Munich Agreement. It is very probable that just demonstrating the Czechoslovak will to protect their border would win over Naciz and prevent World War II, as the German army chiefs and generals planned to overthrow Hitler if Germany went to war with Czechoslovakia, because they did not believe Germany is prepared to fight (the Oster conspiracy). To the contrary, gaining Sudetes "without the single shot" supported Hitler and its propaganda so much, that it was regarded as "greatest statesman of all times".
Some believe that not protecting Crimea against "green men" was the same mistake, which supported Putin and resulted in unrest and war in eastern regions and later opened Russian invasion. Some involved top-ranked politicians say that Russian army has order to pull back if Ukrainians decided to resist. There was also strong sentiment against war in Ukrajine by Russian society and elites at that time, also because Russian propaganda against Ukrajine had no time to produce such damage among them. There was also no war in Donbas helping to provide Russians false feeling to be "protectors of Ukrainian citizens".
The information above does not mean that anyone has right to force Ukrainian government to make decisions over the ways of defend in their own territory. The right of every nation to develop freely shall be respected. That should also apply for providing foreign military support (arms, funds, etc.) for rebels against government, or to any side within the internal conflict, because such efforts can destabilize the country.
This project proposes building home-defence mechanism as the first layer protection, in addition to the current professional armies as the mobile fast-response entities. We propose to build home-defense by small steps, on voluntary basis. Important will be to ensure and propagate strict moral values among its members. And the assurance that they cannot be forced to do anything against their own morale compass like in the professional army. Because they are here to protect own families, own property and are not payed for that. Existing institutions (tests) for those holding legal arms can be used too. Membership in home defence structures shall be an act of honour. It shall be organization of elites, with highest principles to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Whoever shows moral defect or misuses power shall face risk of losing his privileges.
Special focus is put to decrease the risk of misusing home defence, using the best experience from countries where similar mechanism exist (Switzerland, Norway, USA, etc.).
We are aware, that some extremist parties are using the rhetoric of building "self defence" as well. This makes the situation even more serious: not building such structures now brings more support to them. Once they will come to the power, they will build their version of "home defence", based on extremism and xenophobia, with no protection mechanism at all.