Understanding Lithuania’s total defence approach in the face of Russian threat through principal–agent theory
Understanding Lithuania’s total defence approach in the face of Russian threat through principal–agent theory

Summary/Abstract: Identification of the principal and agent in the case study of Lithuania’s total defence approach by analysing official documents.Identification of what constitutes a total defence approach in Lithuania by scrutinising both official documents and semi-structuredinterviews. Determining the implementation of the total defence approach by considering official documents and semi-structuredinterviews. To understand the deeper context, qualitative research methods are employed. The analysis includes primary documentsand semi-structured interviews, which provide the opportunity to identify casual links that may not be evident from documentanalysis alone. In the case study strategy, specifically focusing on the implementation of Lithuania’s total defence approach, a deeperunderstanding is essential, and this naturally requires the in-depth insights that the interview method can offer. Empirical datafrom Lithuania highlights that the misalignment is not only due to information asymmetry, shifting priorities, or weak oversight butalso to differing perceptions of what total defence entails. The Lithuanian Parliament, as the principal, envisioned total defence as abroad, inclusive strategy involving all sectors of society and business. In contrast, the government and military, as agents, prioritisedmilitary professionalisation and NATO integration, treating civilian involvement as secondary. This difference in perspective led tothe deprioritisation of elements, such as citizen mobilisation and resilience-building. The data also shows that inconsistent definitionsof total defence among institutions hindered effective policy implementation. Thus, principal–agent theory needs to account for theseperceptual differences, suggesting that misalignment can arise from interpretive differences, rather than deliberate manipulation.

• Details
• Contents