Month: September 2020

https://www.politico.eu/article/why-putin-hasnt-won-the-game-in-belarus/

Belarus is top of mind at the moment as we consider the geopolitical rivalry between Russia and the West. President Lukashenko of Belarus – known as “Europe’s last dictator” – won reelection by a landslide in August, spurring mass protests by the Belarusian opposition amid accusations of election fraud and foreign meddling. Demonstrations gave way to violence and to mass arrests of protestors, garnering unprecedented international attention for Minsk. Amid the unrest, Lukashenko claimed protests were a Western-backed plot to end his rule and expand NATO influence eastward.

Belarus, of course, has deep and longstanding ties with Russia – historical, cultural, political, and economic. Russia has long wanted to absorb Belarus into a union state and is deeply enmeshed with the Belarussian security state. Lukashenko has flirted with the West at times when it’s suited him but has always tacked back toward Russia in an effort to retain power. Last month Belarus secured a 1.5 billion loan from Russia, following a meeting between Lukashenko and Putin.

This Politico article discusses the EU’s role and how it might coax Belarus toward the West.  The article acknowledges that the EU has limited cards to play given that it doesn’t enjoy the strong ties with Belarus that Russia can claim. However, the article suggests that the EU may exert some influence on the people of Belarus by providing humanitarian support to political refugees and to victims of state-backed violence.  Essentially it recommends an EU appeal to Belarusian hearts and minds.

Frankly, I am not convinced that Belarus can be moved in the direction of the West in the short term – particularly given the Russian Federation’s economic leverage – but I will be watching intently.

 

After the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was reconstructed and renamed Serbia and Montenegro in 2003, it eventually ended with  Montenegro’s formal declaration of independence on June 3, 2006 and Serbia’s on June 5, 2006. But on August 30, 2020, in a parliamentary election, the ruling pro-Western Democratic party of Socialists lost its bid for reelection of their candidate Milo Djukanovic who is still serving his term as the President of the country until 2023. The FP thinks this election which did not draw enough global attention, will have some serious repercussions on the international order.

According to the article, the party that will take over the Democratic party of Socialists is a pro-Russian and pro-Serbian alliance, and therefore, Moscow has gained an ally not just within NATO, but potentially within the European Union. So the authors are making a wake-up call to the EU to do something in order to curb Russian President Vladimir Putin’s growing influence in the Balkans. Also, as we know, the country has put sanctions on Russia. But one of the leader of the new coalition of the opposition that won the elections said that their first goal is to lift those sanctions. So, we can clearly see that there is a willingness to reset new diplomatic ties with the Kremlin. But one may ask is it bad of they get along with Russia?

NATO’s expansion eastward is regarded as a threat to Russia. It is believed that “Russia lobbied hard to dissuade Montenegro from joining the alliance, and that in 2016, the Kremlin even went so far as to back a coup attempt.” Regardless, Montenegro joined NATO in 2017. So there is definitely a struggle of power for a grip on that region of the world. Therefore, a pro-Russian foreign policy of the country will be at the expense of NATO and the EU because Russia is already the biggest foreign direct investor in Montenegro. It also wields the Serbian Orthodox Church as a powerful weapon.

As a result, the article highlights the fact that Putin worked through the church to fight Montenegro’s split from Serbia back in 2006 and its NATO bid. So, given the new ruling coalition is mainly made up of Serbian nationalists called the “For the Future of Montenegro” which is backed by the Serbian Orthodox Church, I think that is a very big leverage for Moscow. In fact. it came out that the Moscow-leaning Serbian church is deeply involved in the politics of the country to the extent that the Serbian government was accused of meddling into their elections, which they denied.

A call is made to the international community to watch out for what is developing in that small country in the Balkans because as Russian influence grows, conflict could rise as well. Moreover, Montenegro is a geostrategic positioning for Russia because of its location on the Adriatic Sea and its associated naval presence. So clearly, Russia wants to control that area. So in the midst of all these struggles, the article recommended that the EU must accelerate the membership of Montenegro and NATO must have a cybersecurity hub headquartered in there to counter “Moscow’s increasingly aggressive cyberintrusions and troll farms in the region.”Personally, I second that because cybersecurity is  one of the biggest issues of our modern world we are facing; and if Russia could meddle into U.S. elections how much less with a tiny nation less than one million inhabitants?

Finally, Serbia which is still in the midst of its own negotiations has received warnings from the EU for a continual interference in Montenegro politics and for being a foothold of Russia. I think that at this juncture, Serbia will have to take a stand as to whether it will be on the EU side or the Russian’s because as the article concluded, “Serbia’s relations with Montenegro will be the litmus test for whether or not Serbia is shifting its foreign-policy goals toward the West.”

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/17/montenegro-latest-domino-fall-russia-pro-west-europe-nato/

Eugene Rumer and Richard Sokolsky, both who are with the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, collaborated on a piece published in Time called  How to Reset U.S.-Russian Relations Today. In this article, Rumer and Sokolsky both give the evident notion of the continuous souring relationship between the United States and Russia today, that gives insight how the relationship has declined as each US Presidential administration came and went dating back to the days of the Clinton Administration. While the majority of the blame on this vexed relationship falls to Moscow, it does not necessarily mean the US cannot be exempt from criticism on its part as it too has had a role in why the relationship between the two nations are at at the point where it is at currently, and possibly could be a the point of no return if things do not improve.

One pro founding point that Rumer and Sokolsky point out is the Clinton, Bush and Obama presidencies had the same policies regarding Russia but of course produced different results. The polices that these previous three administrations were revolved on the ideas that “a refusal to accept Russia for what it was and insistence that it reform itself to better fit the image of what U.S. policymakers thought Russia should look like; and the view that NATO was the only legitimate European security organization, while expanding it ever deeper into the former Soviet lands.” Of course Russia would flat out reject this, but regardless of the stiff necked rejection of these polices by Moscow, the US went on with it anyway with it on and bold idea that Russia would sooner or later accept the notion that what the US is doing is good for them and uses an clever phrase known as the “spinach treatment” as Russia in this scenario are the children that “don’t like spinach, but should eat it because it’s good for them.”

Rumer and Sokolsky start off by examining the Clinton administration policies against Russia that stressed the need for democracy, reforms, and a free market system in Russia and a strong bond between Clinton and Boris Yeltsin. However, not seeing eye to eye on Russian reform progress, NATO expansion, and Kosovo deterred this relationship and both sides grew hostile of each other. Then came the Bush administration, with a commitment with Vladimir Putin that emphasized democracy, free markets, and rule of law which too was short lived by agreements over Iraq, NATO expansion and Russian democracy and went further downhill when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 and claimed that the former Soviet territories off limits to NATO.

The Obama administration sought out a restart of the Russian- US relationship which focused on Russia liberalizing its politics and modernizing its economy, which proved unrealistic to the extreme and was even worsened with Russia invading Ukraine and annexing Crimea and followed by the interference in the 2016 US presidential election. The Trump administration sought out a restart too, but its efforts were tainted by scandals and investigations related to Russia. Despite the usefulness of sanctions, Rumer and Sokolsky argue that its become not just a policy tool, but a replacement for it which speaks volumes. At this point and time it is clearly evident that the US-Russia relationship is at a standstill and signs of improvement are nowhere to be found.

The overall point that Rumer and Sokolsky make in regards to this topic on US-Russia relations is that the US must accept the reality on who Russia really is and is not going to change who it is or what it does to suit US agenda and to continue such a policy which aims to change Russia to suit the US is dead and gone. The issue that they also point out at the end of the article is the issue that has plagued the US is that they were committed to an approaching that focused on transforming rather than pragmatic objectives which is why the US has failed in its efforts with Russia and the relationship is where its at currently. So with that being said, its time for the US to focus on the issues important and critical to the US, and to simply the US-Russia differences must be managed instead of finding solutions to perhaps problems that tend to be insoluble.

With this article I read, I think back to one particular reading that was assigned to us regarding Russia by Michael McFaul called “Russia As It Is”, which McFaul outlines the the same sentiment that Rumer and Sokolsky outlined in this article,  the only two differences I see are with McFaul is that he goes into details specifically what transpired between the two nations that has led them to the deadlock to this day and also in terms of handling Moscow, while both McFaul and Rumer and Sokolsky agree that we must face the reality that Russia will be Russia and will not change for anyone, McFaul goes even further in explaining ways the US still can confront the threat that  Russia still poses.

In my opinion, while I agree with Rumer and Sokolsky that the US has to manage the differences between the two, it is also vital we as McFaul argues also to monitor Russia and to make sure they are not undermining democracy in other places, especially vulnerable areas such as the former Soviet states. Not only monitor them geopolitically, but also in the cyber world and in areas of basic liberties and so on. Russia has its goals in mind, and it is to become a great superpower it used to be, and it will not stop until it becomes that, no matter the risk from what it looks like. Cooperation isn’t out of the question as it is still feasible,  however, it is pointless at this time to seek a transformation policy since Russia will always be Russia and will never change, that is at least as long as Putin is the Head Man in Charge at the Kremlin. But its clear that the Russia problem cannot be fixed, and whoever is next to lead the two respective nations, must learn from the past and seize the moment if there is an chance of mending a declining relationship.

 

Also if interested, there is addition report that Rumer and Sokolsky that dives further into US/Russia Relations and the whether or not it can be fixed for those interested: Thirty Years of U.S. Policy toward Russia: Can the Vicious Circle Be Broken?”

 

 

 

 

 

Christian Brose suggested in his reading that the United States is not taking technological data and information serious towards the new future of military defense. In Brose’s point of view, he sees that the U.S is lacking behind in its military system, he argues that firstly, the U.S is stuck with the traditional system of weapons and platforms and only renews existing models. Secondly, he states that the U.S. holds the ideology that it would never be defeated by any opponent. However, the author asserted that while the U.S. was busy with the Middle East invasions, adversaries such as China and Russia have been advancing their weaponry systems, introducing advanced technology such as artificial intelligence, hypersonic sensors and ubiquitous sensors. He added that China is collecting data and information like it is collecting oil while the U.S. isn’t making the most out of its own. There is no doubt that the future will revolve around advanced technology and I agree with him on what he said that militaries that do embrace and adapt to technologies will dominate those that do not.[1]

The defense system in the U.S. has been elaborated in this reading by former secretary of defense Robert Gates, he mentioned that the budget plan is set for a time duration of 5 years and any changes are mostly unwelcomed, and this is because bureaucratic systems are dedicated to keep programs intact and funded, also companies that built the equipment’s wouldn’t want to change for a new plan because they are already profiting from traditional systems and also members in congress whom some would be accepting the transition and some would not.

Finally, he called on the United States to have a more transparent and find ways to get over the concept of no state can defeat it and to utilize data and technology in a better way. Also focusing on kill chains and. But what I don’t agree with the Christian on is when he claimed that autonomous weapons will do a better job on detecting targets and adversaries and then stated the ethical concerns. To me I found it very contradicting in the same paragraph to consider a “machine” to not have any sort of errors in its system and detect for instance the wrong people would that still be considered ethical? I don’t think so. One of the parts that I found interesting to me when he proposed the idea of having smaller swarms of intelligent systems that are distributed instead of heavy and fewer targets that can be easily determined by opponents.

[1]Christian Brose, “The New Revolution of Military Affairs” , May 2019

One of the most pressing threats to national security is the ongoing offensive waged by Trump’s sycophants against the truth. Late last week, Department of Homeland Security documents obtained by the New York Times show that an official whistleblower complaint had been filed last Wednesday over concerns that top DHS officials were pressuring agents to downplay intelligence detailing the threats posed by violent white supremacist groups and Russian interference in the upcoming election. Unlike Ukrainegate, the whistleblower has been identified to be Brian Murphy – the former head of the DHS intelligence arm. The complaint details concerns that the department is becoming increasingly politicized and is sacrificing transparency and truth in order to help the President in his reelection campaign.

Mr. Murphy alleges that Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf requested that he cease reporting on the ongoing Russian disinformation campaign aimed at denigrating President Trump’s opponent Former V.P. Joe Biden and instead focus on China and Iran. While the two powers also have invested interest in the outcome of the upcoming election, it is the consensus of the intelligence community that while they prefer a Biden victory, they are not actively seeking to undermine electoral institutions in the same way that the Russians are. Mr. Murphy cited concerns that such action undermined U.S. national security. In a separate instance, Mr. Murphy was instructed by Kevin Cuccinelli – Acting Secretary Wolf’s right-hand man – to distort intelligence gathered on white supremacist groups in such a way to make them appear as less of a national security threat than left-wing groups.

While Mr. Trump has made no secret his ire for the intelligence community, these developments are worrying. The traditionally apolitical organs of government aimed at keeping U.S. citizens safe are being influenced by unconfirmed Trump appointees (the King’s men, if you will) in such a way that transparency and honest intelligence gathering are being sacrificed at the altar of Mr. Trump’s reelection chances.

For a passionate newspaper reader (for me, newspapers are still paper and reading is when there is a bit of printing ink left on the fingers), you don’t even have to bother to form an opinion these days: it is served ready. From digital media, TV, news portals, government releases, and many more. And several versions, so that you can believe whatever you want. The very first time for me I thought I was a victim of fake-news was these days, just 19 years ago, sitting not far from my office in Pozsony (Bratislava, Slovakia) and seeing the Twin Towers collapse. They weren’t fake news…

As a news consumer, it is very “practical”, because depending on which political direction you feel closer you get text, pictures, and also a film that matches the version of the truth you want to believe. Very aptly described in a Chesney et al piece:

Thanks to the rise of deep fakes—highly realistic and difficult-to-detect digital manipulations of audio or video—it is becoming easier than ever to portray someone saying or doing something he or she never said or did.[1]

And if the truth should seem too unpleasant, you can always resort to good old-world methods: switch off the news source. Interestingly, not only the trolls of the would-be superpower Russia deal with disinformation but also high-ranking officials of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) enjoy it. This is what happened to Brian Murphy.[2] Murphy who is the former head of DHS’s intelligence division happened to say that his bosses were

Warping the agency around President Trump’s political interests.

Without wanting to go on length, his „failure“ was to produce reports on the violent white supremacy and Russian election interference. More exactly he should not report on the deep-fakes from Russia and concentrate among others more on left-wing anarchos. According to the New York Times, and unfortunately for Murphy´s career, he did not think to do so, that is why he has been removed from his position, like many other specialists of the so-called Deep State. But is the specification of guidelines in a security agency or exchanging staff something special? I do not think so. After each election, posts are discussed and new priorities are set. The special thing about Murphy is that the DHS, which was intended to guard the sovereignty of the USA, as the anti-terrorist organization, was converted into a tool for immigration policies and made into an election vehicle.

According to international law[3]

sovereign states having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state.

The last condition seems very important to me: neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state. Because the Americans will vote on this too, away from all the campaign noise in 51 days: that the USA, a powerful country and for many still the guarantor of western democracy, remains a sovereign state. So God will.

[1]Chesney, Robert, and Danielle Citron. “Deepfakes and the New Disinformation War: The Coming Age of Post-Truth Geopolitics.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 147–155. EBSCOhost.

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/09/us/politics/homeland-security-russia-trump.html

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state

We live in a rapidly evolving political climate where “fake news”, misinformation, and downright lies seem to be more prevalent each day. The most terrifying version of this newscycle has been created by artificial intelligence, called Deepfakes. Citizens seem to be trusting the “news” less and less and we now live in an age where we don’t rely on reporting as much, as we have the ability to hear information straight from our elected officials. But what if the person we are seeing speak isn’t that person at all? What if after hours and hours of studying video recording of a person we can now create artificial versions of that person barely indistinguishable from reality. 

In this smartphone era we live in, the amount of audio and video recording we do of ourselves and our friends has reached an asinine level and Gen Z’ers are only going to expound on that amount. Popular phone applications such as Instagram and TikTok have come under scrutiny for collecting our data in order to use target marketing to attack our consumerist tendencies. What if the target isn’t just our tendencies, but our voices and mannerisms. I’m sure most of us have had unflattering photos or videos posted on the internet, but the generation that is constantly being recorded also has the technology to manipulate the recordings- we are heading to a terrifying future. As Chesney and Citron put it in Deepfakes and the New Disinformation War: The Coming Age of Post-Truth Geopolitics, “These dynamics will make social media fertile ground for circulating deepfakes, with potentially explosive implications for politics.”1

A deepfake video can appear of a senator claiming to admit to a crime, a sitting president declaring war, or a prominent scientist claiming climate change isn’t real and that may be the only spark needed to lead to disaster. We are not far from that reality. We currently have real videos of our president and politicians saying horrible things, and their supporters will deny they’ve been said even though I can watch it with my two eyes. The point is, the narrative will be whatever an individual wants it to be and deepfakes have an ungodly amount of power to shift a narrative. In a January New York Times article Facebook said it would remove videos altered by artificial intelligence in ways meant to mislead viewers2, but it may be impossible to regulate and once information is disseminated it can never be put back in its holster.

 

1. Chesney, Robert, and Danielle Citron. “Deepfakes and the New Disinformation War: The Coming Age of Post-Truth Geopolitics.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 98, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 147–155. EBSCOhost.
2. McCabe, D. (2020, January 8). Facebook Says It Will Ban ‘Deepfakes.’ Https://Www.Nytimes.Com/#publisher. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/technology/facebook-says-it-will-ban-deepfakes.html?referringSource=articleShare

Deepfakes are a relatively new development that has improved drastically, starting around 2018 and getting progressively better (Baker & Capestany, 2018). Deepfakes, in general, are fake but realistic videos that can mimic both real and non-existent people, especially in its uncanny resemblance to realistic motions and voices. There are many interesting and funny videos on one hand, but there are other videos that show how scary this technology can be. For one thing, deepfakes can allow anyone to imitate famous people or politicians. In addition, this can have far-reaching consequences, especially in terms of credibility as well as the ability to figure out what is truly occurring.

Besides this, the damage to reputation and other harm due to people believing in these images or videos are another issue. However, there has been some work done, such as with the U.S. Defense Department’s forensic tool to detect AI and fake news (Knight, 2018).  This seems to be leading to a security-related arms race, as the AI and cybersecurity fields are rapidly developing recently, and their applications to not just industry but to defense and security are becoming explored.

 

References:

Baker, H., & Capestany, C. (2018, September 27). It’s Getting Harder to Spot a Deep Fake Video. Retrieved September 13, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLoI9hAX9dw

Knight, W. (2018, August 7). The Defense Department has produced the first tools for catching deepfakes. Retrieved September 13, 2020, from http://technologyreview.com/2018/08/07/66640/the-defense-department-has-produced-the-first-tools-for-catching-deepfakes/

In The New Revolution in Military Affairs, the author Christian Brose predicts the arrival of several new disruptive technologies onto the battlefields of the future and that the United States military risks losing its current dominance not because of a lack of resources or technological know how, but because political of a lack of imagination and foresight on the part of the US’s military planners.  Brose specifically points out that he does not believe that ethical debates surrounding the use of new weapons systems will contribute to the US losing its technological edge. This is something that I disagree with, I can see the debate surrounding the ethical concerns of using new weapons technology becoming very prominent and politicized which would harm the US’s ability to honestly discuss whether or not new weapons systems should be used.

As we discussed last class, the United States has faced intense criticism at home and abroad for not renouncing the use of weapons such as land mines and napalm. We also discussed how strategic rivals like China and Russia have also not yet committed to not using these types of weapons. As we move into the future, there will no doubt be calls to ban new weapons technologies even before they are used. As we are currently seeing with the coronavirus outbreak, issues surrounding science and technology have the potential  to become a battleground for the ongoing culture war, with people taking sides not based on the actual merits of the new technology but in order to signal their allegiance to a particular side of the political divide. This would only serve to further fracture our already divided country and harm our ability to stay competitive with our military technology.

As we discuss technology, A.I, and apps in relation to national security, I wanted to talk about TikTok. The app is famous for its entertaining 15 – 60-second videos and has boomed globally during the pandemic causing much distress in Washington. Though concerns around the app have always existed one being that it is “a potential spying threat” so much so that Chuck Schumer and Tom Cotton called for an assessment of the app last year. In their statement, they cite the ByteDance owned, Beijing-based app’s threats listed in the terms of service “it collects data from its users and their devices, including user content and communications, IP address, location-related data, device identifiers, cookies, metadata, and other sensitive personal information”. With the app’s US downloads peaking in March, the Trump administration is looking to ban more Chinese apps as the TikTok sale is currently stalled. The greatest fear, it seems, is that the app will collect data from Americans then turn it over to the Chinese Communist Party and then push propaganda onto its users through the algorithm the app creates for each user. Senator Josh Hawley cites another concern: TikTok’s desire to influence. Hawley warns that TikTok may follow Google and Facebook and “try to influence the Capitol and exert influence here, and Google and Facebook have done that to great effect”.

TikTok has stated that they store all US user’s data in the United States with a backup in Singapore and that their data centers are not subject to Chinese law as their data centers are located outside of China.

Meanwhile, opposition has grown against this administration’s efforts to ban the app. The ACLU tweeted their disagreement saying banning the app “is a danger to free expression and technologically impractical.” They rebutted the administration’s argument over the collection of American data saying “To truly address privacy concerns with companies like TikTok, Congress must ensure that ANY company that services US consumers cannot hand over our data to any government without a warrant or equivalent. Letting the president selectively ban platforms isn’t the solution.” An article from the Atlantic Council echoes the ACLU tweets citing the sudden US National headlines TikTok made as it’s popularity grew sharing political activism (and dance videos of course). The article argues that the Trump administration has “not presented any substantive evidence why TikTok is a national security threat to the average American consumer” and that banning the app would be a lot like China’s censoring of internet usage.

TikTok made headlines again after its influence in the small turnout during Trump’s Juneteenth rally in Tulsa. Teen users of the app created videos explaining how to “tank” the rally and they succeeded in making the rally organizers believe there would be a much larger turnout than there actually was. Supporters of the app cite this event as a possible reason for Trump’s demand to ban it completely. Though on surface level it may seem like the app is to “blame” the reality is that the rally took place in the middle of a pandemic and the organizers did not do an adequate job of pulling in reservations.

I agree with the ACLU’s statement that though privacy and data issues must be addressed for any app, not just TikTok, banning this app altogether is an infringement of freedom of expression. Is it a national security threat in of itself? I don’t think it could be any more or less of a threat than Facebook which played a role in the 2016 election and Brexit. If one app or social media site is a threat, then I am sure all of them are also a threat to an extent as they all have access to the same user information.