At some point in the decades-long conflict between East and West, both sides were aware that they had reached a stalemate. Therefore, it was sufficient to upgrade the respective military agreement and rely on mutual deterrence. Otherwise, the military strategy of the two great powers during the Cold War was limited to preparing for conflict as best as possible while doing everything to ensure that it would never turn into real war actions. For example, nuclear weapons were treated as political weapons but actual usage of them has never been an option. The situation was close to a possible tragedy and both sides were careful to net escalate it any more. All confrontations were taken in a philosophical way.
Speeches, Influence, and Strategy
This type of military chess game has decisively defined the term “strategy” in these decades. It became a kind of buzzword and became a part of everyday usage. Suddenly, it was swarming with strategic points, strategic decisions, and aspects. Moreover, this word became very important in terms of the economy. The definition was adjusted in an appropriate sense. A strategy is an instrument of top management in terms of military, business, politics, or even education. It is linked to a temporal component because an approach has a long-term perspective and continuity. It subsequently requires to take consistent action to achieve goals that were set within this cycle. This chain inevitably raises the crucial question for the strategists as to whether the respective strategy should not be classified as equivalent or even higher than the policy itself. After all, in contrast to the decisions of the designers, it is geared towards the long term.
Politics And Military: Working Hand in Hand
This sentence is well-known and might describe the way of adopting any political decision. That is especially true when the development of strategies remains strictly limited to the military hierarchies. However, if politics also pursues a strategic approach, then all decision-makers should follow this goal, policy, and political merge. If digging deeper into this topic, then there is no reason why politics should be softer than a military power because the military is the most reliable bearer of any state enforcement, as a result, all politics supposed to have the same strict attitude without doubts. However, if there is a real conflict, the decision-makers must control the military power and follow the rules of diplomatics first. Otherwise, the process might end up as a national or international tragedy. Any wrong decision in terms of military actions might cause huge economical and social consequences.
On the other hand, the ending can be fatal, if the military strategists lack the overall political vision. The basic approach to reducing strategic thinking to the purely military is wrong. The path of the Habsburg monarchy at the beginning of the 20th century revealed the consequences of the above-mentioned scenario because the collapse of any political and military systems could happen very suddenly.