Generolo Jono Žemaičio Lietuvos karo akademija

This article argues that Russia’s behavior toward NATO, Europe, and Ukraine is not reactive or episodic but reflects a coherent, long-term strategy aimed at restoring imperial power and reshaping the international order. It contends that Western policymakers often misinterpret Russia’s actions, leading to delayed or insufficient responses. Drawing on geopolitical analysis, ideological frameworks, and official Russian doctrines, the article demonstrates that the Kremlin pursues a defined political end-state: reasserting dominance over the post-Soviet space, projecting influence across Europe, and promoting a multipolar system that constrains Western liberal dominance. Russia’s war against Ukraine is examined as a central strategic instrument in this imperial restoration project rather than as a standalone conflict. The analysis shows how military force, hybrid warfare, energy leverage, diplomacy, and ideological narratives are systematically employed to advance these objectives. Recognizing this strategic consistency is essential for effective Western deterrence and long-term security planning.

Pagrindinė šių santykių dilema yra nepakankamai gerai suprantamas žvalgybos vaidmuo, galimybės ir apribojimai. Todėl pirmiausia yra nagrinėjami žvalgybos uždaviniai ir pateikiamas žvalgybos apibrėžimas. Straipsnyje analizuojamos pagrindinės santykių tarp žvalgybos tarnybos ir politinių institucijų problemos: prioritetų ir poreikių žvalgybos tarnybai nesuformulavimas ir grįžtamojo ryšio nebuvimas, per daug glaudūs ryšiai arba atvirkščiai – sąveikos nebuvimas ir žvalgybos proceso politizavimas.

Pripažįstant neišvengiamą iššūkį – politikų bandymus paveikti žvalgybos procesą, siekiant išvengti žvalgybos politizavimo poveikio, straipsnyje siūlomas sprendimas sukurti sisteminius ryšius, kurie grįsti pasitikėjimu bei profesiniu supratimu apie skirtingą vienas kito atsakomybę, galimybes ir apribojimus. Akcentuojama takoskyra tarp abiejų – politikos ir žvalgybos – sričių.

The main dilemmas in these relationships are caused by an insufficient understanding of the role, capabilities, and limitation of intelligence. This is why the article starts with the analysis of the tasks of intelligence and determines its definition. The article deals with the main problems arising in the relationship between intelligence services and political institutions: the lack of clear priorities and requirements provided to the intelligence services; deficiencies in 'feedback'; the over-familiarity or, on the contrary, absence of interaction in the relationship; and the politicization of intelligence.

Whilst acknowledging the inevitable challenge of politicians seeking to affect the process of intelligence, this article aims to avoid the negative effect of politicization of intelligence. It offers a solution to create systematic relations based on confidence and a professional understanding of each other's different responsibilities, capabilities and restrictions. The emphasis is on the balanced divide between domains of politics and intelligence.