THE ROLE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATE’S FOREIGN POLICY STRATEGY

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32689/2523-4625-2025-1(77)-15

Keywords:

armed forces, political institution, foreign policy strategy, military diplomacy, peacekeeping activity, defense function

Abstract

The article presents a comprehensive study of the multifaceted role of the armed forces in the foreign policy strategy of modern states. It highlights the fundamental transformation of the military institution in the 21st century – a shift from the classical perception of the armed forces as solely a means of national defense to an understanding of them as a multifunctional actor actively integrated into the implementation of strategic foreign policy objectives. Under current conditions, the military performs not only defensive tasks but also functions as a key element of the external projection of state power, a source of international influence, a tool of humanitarian diplomacy, and a stabilizing factor in the global security environment.The authors identify several key directions in which the armed forces contribute to foreign policy strategy: military diplomacy, strategic deterrence, participation in peacekeeping missions, projection of force, and humanitarian support. Military diplomacy is interpreted as an institutionally structured mechanism for building security alliances, advancing defense interests, and fostering trust among states. It includes the work of defense attachés, officer exchanges, joint exercises, and the signing of defense agreements. At the same time, the authors draw attention to the risk of substituting classical diplomacy with the logic of «hard power», which may lead to the marginalization of civilian components in international dialogue and the dominance of force projection as a means of communication (in line with the approaches of C. Aikenberry).In conclusion, the authors emphasize that the involvement of the armed forces in foreign policy is neither static nor merely functional. Its nature, scope, and effectiveness are conditioned by broader geopolitical dynamics, including: (1) the hybridization of conflicts (the combination of military, informational, and economic means of confrontation); (2) the technological transformation of armies (the implementation of AI, autonomous systems, drones, and cyber capabilities); (3) the rise of multipolarity and the regionalization of security, which requires the development of new formats for interaction and deterrence. These changes demand a more comprehensive strategic vision of the military’s role in international relations and the modernization of its institutional architecture.The conclusion stresses that in the 21st century, the armed forces have become a multidimensional instrument performing deterrence, stabilization, assistance, political communication, and symbolic influence. This necessitates the renewal of both national security doctrines and the diplomatic toolkit of states, taking into account new formats of politico-military engagement.

References

Краліч Є. Військові технологічні інновації в оборонному секторі економіки. Серія: Економіка. 2024. № 27. С. 15–24. URL: https://doi.org/10.34079/2226-2822-2024-14-27-15-24.

Митрофанова О. Національна держава і глобальний ресурс військової дипломатії. Науковий вісник Дипломатичної академії України. 2015. Вип. 22(2). С. 50–60. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Nvdau_2015_22%282%29__7.

Надходить міжнародна допомога жертвам землетрусу в Гаїті. Голос Америки українською 16 січня 2010. URL: https://www.holosameryky.com/a/a-49-2010-01-16-voa2-87004312/225919.html.

Попадик О. Концепція «баланс сил»: її зміст та значення у міжнародних відносинах. URL: https://jppasa.donnu.edu.ua/article/view/15752.

Ahmadly J. Overview of NATO and EU’s struggle against hybrid threats. Вісник НТУУ «КПІ». Політологія. Соціологія. Право. 2022. Випуск 2(54). URL: https://doi.org/10.20535/2308-5053.2022.2(54).264384.

Andrea H. Cameron The legacy of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami on U.S. maritime strategy. URL: https://cimsec.org/legacy-2004-indian-ocean-earthquake-tsunami-maritime-strategy/.

Freedman L. Deterrence. Polity Press. 2004. URL: https://www.amazon.com/ Deterrence-Lawrence-Freedman/dp/0745631134.

Karl W. Eikenberry. The Militarization of U.S. Foreign Policy, American Foreign Policy Interests : The Journal of the National Committee on American Foreign Policy, 2013. 35:1, 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10803920.2013.757952.

Morgan P. M. Deterrence Now. Cambridge University Press. 2003. URL: https://ir101.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/morgan-deterrence-now-compressed.pdf.

Nye, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, 2004. URL: https://www.academia.edu/23620658/Soft_Power_the_Means_to_Success_in_World_Politics_Joseph_S_Nye_Jr/

Schelling T. C. Arms and Influence. Yale University Press. 1966. URL: https://archive.org/details/armsinfluence0000sche/page/n7/mode/2up/.

Published

2025-07-15

How to Cite

МЕЖЕНСЬКА, О., НОВОСКОЛЬЦЕВА, Л., & БАДЕР, А. (2025). THE ROLE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATE’S FOREIGN POLICY STRATEGY. Scientific Works of Interregional Academy of Personnel Management. Political Sciences and Public Management, (1(77). https://doi.org/10.32689/2523-4625-2025-1(77)-15