Military Studies: Journal for Strategy, Technology and Defense Sciences

Military Studies: Journal for Strategy, Technology and Defense Sciences is a double-blind peer-reviewed scientific journal dedicated to the study of war, society, and strategic thought in the broadest sense. The journal publishes original scientific papers in the field of military sciences, including military theory and doctrine, geopolitics, military strategy and tactics, history of warfare, war and modern conflicts, military aviation, military engineering, security studies, as well as all other areas relevant to military sciences and defense. Special attention is given to an interdisciplinary approach that connects military history with political theory, sociology, philosophy of war, international relations studies, and the technical-technological aspects of contemporary warfare. Military Studies brings together researchers from diverse academic environments who contribute to the understanding of complex relationships between military power, social structures, technological development, and political decision-making. The journal fosters methodological pluralism, equally valuing historical case studies, comparative analyses,technical studies, and theoretical examinations of contemporary security challenges. Through a rigorous double-blind peer review process, the journal strives for the highest standards of academic excellence and contributes to the deepening of scientific discourse on the role of war, defense, and strategy in shaping human civilization. More information about the journal, the editorial board, and author guidelines is available on the Military Studies page.

ISSN (štampano): 3126-3666 ISSN (online): 3126-3674
book-cover
Military Studies: Journal for Strategy, Technology and Defense Sciencesinbox-iconArhiva

Journal Title: Military Studies: Journal for Strategy, Technology and Defense Sciences

ISSN (Print): 3126-3666

ISSN (Online): 3126-3674

Publisher: Society for Ancient Philosophy, Cosmology, Religion, Anthropology and Astrobiology

Contact: info@sapcraa.com Phone: +38765471075

Adress: Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Publication Frequency: The journal publishes two regular issues per year (June and December). In addition, special thematic issues devoted to specific topics in military sciences may be published throughout the year, subject to editorial approval.

Language: English

Editor-in-Chief: Academician Prof. Dr. Predrag Dašić, Engineering Academy of Serbia (IAS), Republic of Serbia.

AIMS & SCOPE

Aims

Military Studies aims to advance the rigorous study of war, strategy, and the technological and social dimensions of armed force. Published by SAPCRAA, the journal seeks to provide an international, double-blind peer-reviewed forum for scholars and practitioners in strategic and defense studies, fostering methodological pluralism and connecting military science with its political, social, and ethical context. It upholds the highest standards of academic excellence and publication ethics and makes research accessible to a global research community.

Scope

The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and case studies in military, strategic, and defense sciences. Its core areas are military theory and doctrine; strategy and tactics; security and defense studies; the history of warfare; military medicine, contemporary and hybrid conflict; and the technological dimension of military affairs, including military engineering and aviation. It gives particular attention to interdisciplinary work connecting these subjects with geopolitics, international relations, and the political, social, and ethical analysis of war, where such work makes a clear contribution to the understanding of strategy, defense, and military power. The journal values historical case studies, comparative and theoretical analyses, and technical studies alike. All articles are published in English with full abstracts.

Types of Contributions

The journal welcomes the following types of submissions

  • Original research articles,

  • Review articles and theoretical essays,

  • Case studies and comparative analyses,

  • Research notes and commentaries,

  • Book reviews.

All submissions except book reviews undergo double-blind peer review.

PUBLICATION ETHICS

This journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. Please see our [Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement] for more information.

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

All manuscripts submitted to Military Studies: Journal for Strategy, Technology and Defense Sciences undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest standards of academic quality and integrity. Each submission is initially assessed by the Editor-in-Chief for scope and quality before being sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. For complete details on our review procedures, criteria, and timelines, please refer to our [Peer Review Process].

AUTHOR GUIDELINES

Military Studies: Journal for Strategy, Technology and Defense Sciences welcomes submissions from researchers, academics, and practitioners in the field of military sciences and related disciplines. Before submitting a manuscript, authors are kindly requested to carefully review our formatting requirements, citation style, and submission procedures. Complete instructions for preparing and submitting your manuscript are available in our [Author Guidelines].

ARCHIVE AND ACCESS

Military Studies: Journal for Strategy, Technology and Defense Sciences is committed to the principles of open scholarship. As a fully open access journal, we provide immediate and unrestricted access to all published research. Complete full-text versions of all issues are available in our [Archive]. To ensure permanence and citability, each article is assigned a unique Digital Object Identifier (DOI). All content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), permitting others to share, copy, and adapt the work for any purpose, provided appropriate credit is given to the original authors and source.

All journal issues and articles are available in the [Archive].

INDEXING AND ABSTRACTING

Military Studies: Journal for Strategy, Technology and Defense Sciences is committed to ensuring global visibility and accessibility of published research. The journal is currently indexed in the following databases:

The journal has been indexed in the Serbian Citation Index (SCIndeks) since 11 June 2026.

The journal has been indexed in the Dimensions database.

The journal is registered on the eLIBRARY.ru platform (Scientific Electronic Library, Moscow).

The journal's content is crawled and made discoverable through Google Scholar.

Metadata for the journal and all published articles are available in OpenAlex, an open catalog of scholarly works.

The publisher is a Crossref member. Metadata for all articles is deposited with Crossref, and each article receives a persistent DOI (prefix 10.65932).

All published articles are available on the journal's Academia.edu profile.

The journal is present on ResearchGate.

COPYRIGHT POLICY

Authors who publish in Military Studies retain full copyright of their work. By submitting a manuscript, authors grant the journal the right of first publication. All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This means that anyone may freely read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, provided that proper attribution is given to the original authors and source.

Authors are permitted to:

  • Share and distribute their published work through any medium,

  • Deposit their work in institutional or subject repositories,

  • Reuse their work in subsequent publications,

  • Retain patent and trademark rights,

  • Gender and diversity in armed forces,

No formal copyright transfer is required.

PLAGIARISM POLICY

Military Studies: Journal for Strategy, Technology and Defense Sciences is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity. All submitted manuscripts are screened for plagiarism and originality using iThenticate prior to peer review. Manuscripts found to contain plagiarised content, including self-plagiarism, will be rejected immediately. If plagiarism is detected after publication, the journal will follow the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and may retract the article. Authors are expected to ensure that their work is entirely original and that any use of others' ideas, words, or data is properly cited.

RETRACTION POLICY

Military Studies: Journal for Strategy, Technology and Defense Sciences follows the retraction guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Articles may be retracted in the following circumstances:

Clear evidence of unreliable findings due to misconduct or honest error,

  • Plagiarism or redundant publication,

  • Fabrication or falsification of data,

  • Failure to disclose major conflicts of interest,

  • Ethical violations involving human or animal subjects,

  • Copyright infringement.

Retraction notices will be published and linked to the original article, which will remain accessible but clearly marked as retracted. Retractions may be initiated by the authors, the Editor-in-Chief, or the publisher upon verified evidence of misconduct.

APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS

Military Studies: Journal for Strategy, Technology and Defense Sciences is committed to fair and transparent editorial processes. Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision or file a complaint may do so by following the procedures outlined below.

Appeals: Authors may submit an appeal if they believe a rejection decision was made in error. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision and should include a detailed response to the reviewers' comments and a clear justification for reconsideration. Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, if necessary, by an independent member of the Editorial Board. The decision on the appeal is final.

Complaints: Complaints regarding editorial conduct, peer review process, or publication ethics should be addressed in writing to the Editor-in-Chief at editor@sapcraa.com All complaints will be investigated promptly and handled in accordance with COPE guidelines.

AI POLICY

Military Studies: Journal for Strategy, Technology and Defense Sciences follows current guidelines of COPE, WAME, and ICMJE concerning the use of artificial intelligence in scholarly publishing. AI tools, including large language models and generative systems such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and Copilot, cannot be listed as authors, since authorship entails intellectual accountability that AI systems cannot bear. Full responsibility for every aspect of a submitted manuscript — including any content produced, drafted, edited, translated, or otherwise assisted by AI — rests entirely with the human authors, who remain accountable for the accuracy of all claims, the integrity of all citations, and the originality of all arguments. Authors must disclose any substantive use of AI tools in the methods section or in a dedicated acknowledgments statement, identifying the tool, its version, and the function performed (text generation, idea development, literature search, code or statistical analysis, image generation, translation, and similar). Routine language polishing does not require detailed itemisation but should be acknowledged in general terms. The fabrication of citations, quotations, or data — whether by AI or otherwise — constitutes a serious breach of research integrity and will result in rejection, retraction, and, in cases of bad faith, notification of the authors' institutions. Reviewers and editors are prohibited from uploading submitted manuscripts to public or third-party AI systems, as this violates the confidentiality of peer review. AI-generated images and figures must be clearly labelled as such and may not represent empirical, archival, or ethnographic material without explicit methodological justification. The Editorial Board reserves the right to request further information about AI use at any stage, to require revision, and to reject or retract work where AI use has not been properly disclosed. The policy is reviewed periodically and updated to reflect evolving standards in scholarly publishing.

PRIVACY POLICY

Military Studies: Journal for Strategy, Technology and Defense Sciences is committed to protecting the privacy of all users, authors, reviewers and readers.

Data Collection: We collect personal information (such as names, email addresses, and institutional affiliations) only when voluntarily provided during manuscript submission, registration, or correspondence. This information is used solely for editorial and publishing purposes.

Data Usage: Personal data is used to manage the submission and peer review process, communicate with authors and reviewers, and improve our services. We do not share personal information with third parties except as necessary for publishing operations or when required by law.

Cookies: Our website may use cookies to enhance user experience and analyse site traffic. Users may disable cookies through their browser settings.

Data Security: We implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect personal data against unauthorised access, alteration, or disclosure.

Rights: Users have the right to access, correct, or request deletion of their personal data. For any privacy-related inquiries, please contact us at [email].

This policy is compliant with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

ARTICLE PROCESSING CHARGES

Military Studies: Journal for Strategy, Technology and Defense Sciences is primarily funded through donations, institutional support, and the resources of the Society for Ancient Philosophy, Cosmology, Religion, Anthropology and Astrobiology. As a result, the journal strives to minimise financial barriers for authors and does not routinely charge Article Processing Charges (APCs). Submission and peer review are always free of charge. However, in exceptional circumstances, a modest APC may be applied to support the costs of publication. Authors will be informed of any applicable charges upon acceptance of their manuscript. For further information, please contact the editorial office at info@sapcraa.com

SUBMISSION

Military Studies: Journal for Strategy, Technology and Defense Sciences welcomes original submissions from researchers, academics, and practitioners worldwide. Manuscripts may be submitted through one of the following methods:

Option 1: Submit via our online submission form [here].

Option 2: Submit via email to info@sapcraa.com with “Manuscript Submission” in the subject line. Authors will receive confirmation of receipt within 5 business days. Before submitting, please ensure that your manuscript complies with the formatting and style requirements outlined in our [Author Guidelines].

Uređivački odbor

  1. Emeritus Prof. Dr. Carlyle A. ThayerThe University of New South Wales (UNSW) at the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) and director Thayer ConsultancyExpert in international relations and security in Southeast Asia, with a focus on Vietnam, Cambodia and the South China Sea(Australia)
  2. Brigadier General Prof. Dr. Zoltan JobbagyHead of the Department of Military Strategy, Faculty of Military Science and Officer Training, Ludovika University of Publ. ServiceMilitary strategy and the theory and practice of allied joint operations, with a focus on operational art, hybrid and irregular warfare, and defence human resource management(Republic of Hungary)
  3. Prof. Dr. Shankar ChakrabortyDepartment of Production Engineering, Jadavpur UniversityMulti-criteria decision-making methods applied to manufacturing, machining process optimization, and industrial engineering(Republic of India)
  4. Prof. Dr. Darko TrifunovićUniversity of Belgrade - Faculty of Security StudiesIntelligence and counter-intelligence studies; counter-terrorism and violent extremism; hybrid and cognitive warfare; critical infrastructure protection; national and international security in the Western Balkans (Republic of Serbia)
  5. Prof. Dr. Konovalova SvetlanaNational Academy of Sciences of UkraineOrganic chemistry and synthesis of biologically active compounds(Republic of Ukraine)
  6. Prof. Dr. Liliana BrožičFaculty of Government and European Studies, New University and Ministry of DefenceSecurity studies, military communication and media, and evaluation of defense programs.(Republic of Slovenia)
  7. Prof. Dr. Eyal ZisserTel Aviv UniversityMiddle Eastern security and strategy, modern political and military history of Syria and Lebanon, regime survival and civil–military relations in the Arab state, non-state armed actors and proxy warfare, Israeli defence policy and the Arab–Israeli conflict(State of Israel)
  8. Prof. Dr. Miroslav Mitrović, colonel (ret.)Strategic Research Institute, Ministry of DefenceStrategic Studies, Domestic and International Security, Security Analytics, Hybrid Warfare, Strategic Communication and Security Risk Management(Republic of Serbia)
  9. Prof. Dr. Friedrich FranekAustrian Center of Competence for TribologyTribological performance of armored systems and defense technology(Republic of Austria)
  10. Prof. Dr. Andrzej KrzakJan Długosz University in CzęstochowaMilitary history and security studies, intelligence and counterintelligence services (Polish and Soviet, 1918–1939, and contemporary), armed conflicts and geopolitics of the Balkans in the 20th and 21st centuries, asymmetric warfare, strategy and military-political relations in Eastern Europe(Republic of Poland)
  11. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Thai DungLe Quy Don Technical UniversityAmmunition design and weapons systems, with a focus on ballistics and special military equipment(Socialist Republic of Vietnam)
  12. Prof. Dr. Goran Ranković, col.University of Niš - Faculty od MedicineMilitary medicine and physiology(Republic of Serbia)
  13. Prof. Dr. Raul TurmanidzeGeorgian Technical UniversityManufacturing engineering, precision micro-tools, cutting materials, industrial robotics, and Industry 4.0(Republic of Georgia)
  14. Prof. Dr. Jasmina MarkovskiIra A. Fulton Schools of EngineeringDrinking water treatment, nanotechnology-enabled water purification, hybrid sorbent media, and water resources management(United States of America)
  15. Prof. Dr. Valentin NedeffUniversity of BacauEnvironmental engineering, mechanical engineering, millitary engineering, modeling and optimization in machine building, and water quality analysis(Republic of Romania)
  16. Academician Prof. Dr. Nedžad KorajlićUniversity of Sarajevo & BANUKOrganized crime, terrorism, and contemporary security threats, as well as in forensic-investigative methods applicable to the security and defense sector(Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Najnoviji broj
Br. 2·11. октобар 2026.

Volume: 4 Issue: 2 (2026) Serial Number: 6

9–31
Modernization of the armament of the bolivarian armed Forces: Russian and Chinese military technology transfers To Venezuela before and after maduro's assumption of power
Venezuela conducted the most ambitious military modernization in Latin America of the early twenty-first century, absorbing approximately 11 billion US dollars of Russian defense articles between 2001 and 2013 and becoming the largest buyer of Russian weapons in the West- ern Hemisphere. The aim of this article is to explain why an armament program of this magnitude proved strategically unsustainable, and to measure that unsustainability in a replicable way. The research applies a mixed methodological approach combining longitudinal analysis of arms-trans- fer data (SIPRI Arms Transfers Database, IISS Military Balance), comparative analysis of the pre- Maduro (2005–2013) and Maduro (2013–2025) periods, and a structured case study of Russian and Chinese transfer channels. The original contribution of the article is the Transferred-Capa- bility Sustainability Index (TCSI), a five-dimension composite metric (financing continuity, maintenance autonomy, technology absorption, human capital retention, supplier commitment) that quantifies the degree to which an import-based modernization survives the interruption of its enabling conditions. Applied to Venezuela, the TCSI falls from 7.0/10 in the 2005–2013 pe- riod to 3.0/10 in the 2014–2025 period, a 57% decline. Key findings: deliveries of major conven- tional weapons collapsed to near zero after 2016; Venezuela's GDP contracted by more than 80% between 2013 and 2020, removing the fiscal basis of sustainment; by 2019 Russian specialist personnel had to be deployed to Venezuela simply to keep previously delivered equipment oper- ational. The article concludes that the Venezuelan case demonstrates a generalizable proposition: arms-transfer-based modernization without absorption of maintenance, production, and training capacity produces capability that is rented rather than owned, and decays at the speed of the political relationship that financed it.
32–55
Force disguised as law enforcement in Venezuela: the 2026 capture of maduro, hybrid justification and the erosion of article 2(4) of the UN charter
On 3 January 2026, United States forces struck targets in and around Caracas, seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, and flew them to New York to stand trial on narco-terrorism charges. Washington presented the raid not as a use of force against Venezuela but as a law enforcement operation facilitated by the military. This article examines two linked questions: whether that framing has any footing in the jus ad bellum, and whether the reaction of other states was strong enough to protect the prohibition of force laid down in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Doctrinal analysis of the five justificatory strands advanced by the United States (law enforcement, implicit self-defence, non-recognition of Maduro, the Noriega analogy and the narco-terrorism designation) shows that none satisfies a recognised exception and that their combination functions to avoid any single, testable legal claim. The original contribution of the article is the Normative Response Index (NRI), a five-point coding scale (from -2, explicit legal condemnation, to +2, explicit endorsement) applied to all 27 states that addressed the Se- curity Council at its 10085th meeting on 5 January 2026. The mean NRI is -1.00 (SD = 1.18); only 11 of 27 states (40.7%) characterised the operation as unlawful, 13 (48.1%) voiced concern or equivocated, and 3 (11.1%) welcomed it. No Western European and Others Group speaker described the operation as illegal. Sensitivity analysis keeps the mean between -0.89 and -1.11 under every alternative coding, which places the case in the category of contested rejection rather than clear rejection. Compared with Panama in 1989, when the General Assembly condemned the intervention by 75 votes to 20, the institutional response in 2026 stopped at debate. The findings indicate that the discursive validity of Article 2(4) survives, but its institutional enforce- ment layer has thinned, and that hybrid justification exploits precisely this gap.
56–75
The impact of unilateral sanctions on Venezuela's reindustrialization capacities: substitution and diversion effects
This article asks a question that the sanctions literature has posed for many target states but not yet answered for Venezuela in quantitative terms: as Washington tightened unilateral coercive measures between 2014 and 2025, did the resulting pressure push the country toward genuine import-substituting reindustrialization, or did it merely reroute the existing oil complex toward new buyers while domestic industry kept contracting? Drawing on a mixed-method de- sign that couples a transparently coded Sanctions Intensity Index (SII) with two outcome series, the Eastward Reorientation Share (ERS) of crude exports and a manufacturing value-added in- dex, I test three hypotheses on the substitution and diversion effects of sanctions. The central empirical finding is novel for this case. Sanctions intensity is strongly and positively associated with the eastward diversion of Venezuelan crude toward China (Pearson r = 0.905), yet that diversion is sharply decoupled from any domestic industrial recovery: the correlation between the reorientation share and manufacturing value added is strongly negative (r = -0.893), and sanctions intensity tracks the collapse of manufacturing almost one-to-one (r = -0.952). In plain terms, what occurred was external buyer-substitution, not internal productive substitution. The pe- trostate adapted at the level of who buys its oil, not at the level of what it makes. These results qualify the optimistic reading of sanctions as a spur to industrial self-reliance and specify the mechanism, asymmetric resource dependence under coercion, through which diversion crowds out reindustrialization. The contribution is one verifiable, replicable relationship, built from pub- lic data and a documented coding rubric, that future work can extend with proprietary cargo- tracking series.
76–97
Analysis of rotating equipment failures in Venezuelan refin- eries: the impact of absent preventive maintenance of pump and compressor systems of the paraguaná complex on refining reliability
The Paraguaná Refining Center, the union of the Amuay and Cardón refineries on Venezuela's Paraguaná peninsula and historically among the largest refining complexes in the world, has undergone a reliability collapse without precedent in the modern downstream industry, culminating in events such as the 2012 Amuay vapor cloud explosion — more than fifty fatalities, damage exceeding one billion US dollars, and an origin traced to a hydrocarbon leak following a pump-related containment failure (Sajid et al., 2021). The aim of this article is to explain and quantify how the systematic absence of preventive maintenance of pump and compressor sys- tems translates into the degradation of refining reliability. The research applies a mixed method- ological approach: a structured synthesis of the failure-mode and condition-monitoring literature for refinery rotating equipment; a documentary reconstruction of the maintenance-deprivation context of Venezuelan refining after 2013; and a model-based reliability simulation of a repre- sentative Paraguaná-scale rotating-equipment population, whose parameters are anchored to published failure data — bearing-dominated pump failure distributions of approximately 38%, Weibull characteristic lives of 510–657 operating days, and valve-dominated compressor failure structures of approximately 36% (Silva et al., 2023; Lv et al., 2021). The original contribution of the article is the Cumulative Maintenance Deficit Index (CMDI) — a criticality-weighted measure of unexecuted scheduled maintenance accumulated over time — together with an empirically fitted exponential degradation law, λ(t) = λ0·exp(κ·CMDI), which on the simulated dataset yields κ = 2.14 (95% CI: 1.87–2.41) with R2 = 0.93, implying that each 0.32 increment of maintenance deficit approximately doubles the failure intensity of the rotating-equipment population. Key findings: reliability decline under maintenance deprivation is strongly nonlinear; the failure-mode structure shifts from wear-out of monitored components toward systemic lubrication, sealing, and auxiliary failures; and workforce emigration acts as an independent degradation channel that spare-parts availability alone cannot offset (Garcia Zea, 2020; Gonyora & Ventura-Medina, 2024). All simulation outputs are explicitly model-generated and are intended as a transferable analytical template to be repopulated with plant data.
98–119
Repression as an instrument of poverty management: The Bolivarian National Guard between protest suppression and control of the informal economy under conditions of mass UN-employment (2014–2026)
Between 2014 and 2026 Venezuela combined the deepest peacetime economic collapse in the modern history of the Western Hemisphere with one of its most intensive deployments of state coercion: income poverty reached 73.2% of households and informality approximately half of all employment (UCAB, 2025), while a United Nations fact-finding mission documented se- curity-force conduct amounting, in its assessment, to crimes against humanity — with the Boli- varian National Guard (GNB) responsible for the largest number of politically motivated deten- tions and for indiscriminate firing on protesters across the 2014, 2017, 2019, and 2024 protest cycles (UN Human Rights Council, 2020; OHCHR, 2025). The aim of this review article is to synthesize the fragmented scholarship on Venezuelan coercion, poverty, and informality into a single analytical account of the GNB's role. The research applies a structured review methodol- ogy: a corpus of 53 peer-reviewed studies published 2019–2026, assembled through systematic database searches and verified item by item, is coded by the state function each study documents, and triangulated against United Nations, survey, and observatory sources. The original contribu- tion of the article is the concept of coercive poverty governance and its operationalization as a three-function typology of GNB activity — protest suppression, regulation of the informal sur- vival economy, and enforcement of extractive rents — which reorganizes a literature convention- ally split between “repression” and “informality” studies into a single governance logic. Key find- ings: the reviewed literature's center of gravity shifts after 2019 from protest suppression toward economic and extractive coercion, tracking the regime's own reallocation of the GNB; repression functions not as a response to poverty's disorders but as the principal instrument by which an insolvent state manages a population it can no longer pay; and lethal escalation produced exit rather than voice — mass emigration of 7.9 million — consistent with cross-national repression theory (Congressional Research Service, 2025; Curtice & Behlendorf, 2021; Weitzman & Huss, 2024). The typology is transferable to other cases where security forces govern survival econo- mies under fiscal collapse.
120–142
From Tito's Yugoslavia to the Bolivarian republic: A history of diplomatic, economic, military, and non-aligned-movement-mediated relations between Serbia and Venezuela (1950- 2026)
Serbia and Venezuela maintain one of the oldest formally established relationships between Southeast Europe and Latin America — dating, by the Serbian foreign ministry's own record, to 13 April 1882 — yet no dedicated peer-reviewed study of the dyad exists in any lan- guage, a gap this review both documents and begins to fill (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia, 2026; Simić, 2024). The aim of the article is to reconstruct the diplomatic, economic, military, and Non-Aligned-Movement-mediated history of the relationship across 1950–2026 and to explain its paradoxical structure: a bilateral trade of only 594,000 euros in 2025 coexisting with high-visibility political alignment — Venezuela's steadfast non-recognition of Ko- sovo, Belgrade's continued dealings with the Maduro government through the 2019 dual-presi- dency crisis, and a Venezuelan ministerial presence at the movement's sixtieth-anniversary com- memoration hosted by Serbia in October 2021 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Serbia, 2026; Visoka, 2024; Government of the Republic of Serbia, 2021). The research applies a structured review methodology: a corpus of 60 peer-reviewed studies published 2019–2026, ver- ified item by item, is synthesized with a documentary base of treaties, declarations, and archival records, and organized through a five-channel periodization of the relationship. The original con- tribution of the article is the concept of legacy-mediated alignment — an interstate alignment sustained by inherited multilateral capital and reciprocal sovereignty norms rather than by mate- rial exchange — operationalized in a five-period, five-channel Bilateral Alignment Matrix whose every cell is documentarily anchored. Key findings: the relationship's intensity peaks coincide exclusively with Non-Aligned institutional moments — 1961, 1976, 1989, and 2021 — rather than with bilateral economic or military interest; the economic and military channels never devel- oped beyond framework agreements, with no major-conventional-weapons transfers registered in either direction across the entire window (SIPRI, 2025); and the post-2008 alignment rests on a reciprocal non-recognition exchange — Kosovo for the Venezuelan opposition's interim pres- idency — that functions as mutual sovereignty insurance between two states contesting external verdicts on their statehood questions (Newman & Visoka, 2023; Ahlborn, 2025). The framework is transferable to other post-socialist–Global South dyads sustained by non-aligned memory.
143–165
From the Bolivarian alternative to strategic isolation: the transformation of Venezuela's geopolitical position in the western hemisphere before and after 2013
Between 2004 and 2013 Venezuela authored more regional architecture than any Latin American state of its size in history — ALBA in 2004, PetroCaribe in 2005 with concessional terms the IMF valued at no less than 0.7% of members' GDP, and a leading role in UNASUR and CELAC — while after 2013 it became the object around which the hemisphere's institutions reorganized: suspended from Mercosur in 2016 and 2017, self-expelled from the OAS between 2017 and 2019, the cause of the Lima Group's creation in 2017 and of PROSUR's in 2019, and the subject of the largest coordinated recognition-of-government action of the modern era in 2019 (Jardón et al., 2020; Palestini, 2021; Ribeiro Hoffmann, 2019; Nolte, 2021; Hasar, 2025). The aim of this review article is to synthesize the fragmented scholarship on Venezuelan foreign policy, Latin American regionalism, extra-regional patronage, and recognition politics into a sin- gle account of this transformation. The research applies a structured review methodology: a cor- pus of 76 peer-reviewed studies published 2019–2026, verified item by item, is synthesized with institutional and documentary sources and organized through a three-period, four-arena recon- struction of Venezuela's institutional standing. The original contribution of the article is the con- cept of hub inversion — the transformation of a state from author of regional institutions into the object around which rival institutions organize — operationalized in a Hemispheric Position Matrix whose every cell is documentarily anchored. Key findings: the exclusion cascade of 2014– 2019 was executed almost entirely through institutions Venezuela had once shaped or joined, making the isolation a mirror image of the earlier activism; extra-regional deepening with Russia, China, and Cuba compensated the lost hemispheric position only in regime-survival terms, not in positional terms (Gratius, 2022; Kosevich, 2023; Bull & Rosales, 2026); and the isolation proved sticky through mechanism change — the recognition coalition of 2019 collapsed by 2023, yet non-recognition of the 2024 election, the escalation of the Essequibo dispute before the In- ternational Court of Justice, and exclusion from every functioning hemispheric body reproduced the isolated position by new means (Mijares, 2025; Pomson, 2025; Legler, 2020). The concept and matrix are transferable to other cases of institutional authorship reversed, from interwar re- visionists to contemporary Nicaragua.
166–182
Force disguised as law enforcement in Venezuela: graduated coercion, special operations and the strategic logic of leadership decapitation
The removal of Nicolás Maduro by US forces on 3 January 2026 is usually analysed as a problem of international law. This article treats it as a problem of military strategy. It asks how the United States built the campaign that ended with the seizure of a sitting head of state, and why a tactically successful decapitation produced neither the collapse of the Venezuelan regime nor a protracted war, but a rapid alignment of the successor government with Washington. Using process tracing across four phases of the campaign between September 2025 and January 2026, and following the outcomes through September 2026, the article finds that the operation was the final rung of a graduated coercion ladder that moved from lethal maritime interdiction, through a blockade of sanctioned oil tankers and a limited strike on port facilities, to a single-night raid on Caracas. The law enforcement framing of the raid was not only legal rhetoric; it worked as an escalation-control device that signalled limited aims to the Venezuelan armed forces and the chavista elite, and it shaped a small-footprint design consistent with the theory of special opera- tions. The original contribution of the article is the concept and model of custodial decapitation: a mode of leadership removal in which a state leader is seized alive and transferred to the captor's jurisdiction while the state apparatus is deliberately left intact, so that decapitation operates as compellence against the successor elite rather than as foreign-imposed regime change. Three mechanisms drive the model: demonstrated reach, custody as continuing leverage, and a pre- served apparatus able to deliver concessions. The Venezuelan sequence that followed, from the January opening of the oil sector to the 25-year energy agreement announced in August 2026, fits the model closely. The findings suggest that custodial decapitation lowers the costs that histori- cally made overt regime change rare, which makes it an attractive and destabilising template for great power coercion.
183–195
A case for empire: Why the United States intervened in Venezuela in 2026?
This research article analyzes the U.S. military operation “Absolute Resolve” on Janu- ary 3, 2026, which resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife by Delta Force units supported by air and naval assets. Employing a qualitative interpretive case- study design, the study examines the event through five analytical levels: civilizational, geopoliti- cal, international relations, political philosophy, and military. The findings show that the inter- vention reflects persistent imperial logic, thalassocratic geopolitical imperatives, a shift toward offensive realism, institutional transition from republican to extractive models, and mature net- work-centric warfare doctrine. Two novel concepts are introduced: Monroe Doctrine 2.0 (an updated regional exclusion policy targeting extra-hemispheric revisionists such as China, Russia, and Iran) and hybrid imperial contraction (strategic refocus on hemispheric consolidation to en- able future global objectives). These concepts frame the operation as defensive consolidation of regional hegemony and preparation for continued power projection. The event is symptomatic of a status quo hegemon defending dominance through preemptive action, realist assertiveness, institutional adaptation, and doctrinal refinement. Implications include regional instability in Latin America, deepened geopolitical divides, and potential erosion of U.S. republican institu- tions. Limitations stem from reliance on secondary sources and the event’s recency. Future re- search should explore long-term outcomes and comparative cases.
pdf-iconVolume: 4 Issue: 2 (2026) Serial Number: 6preuzmiotvori