Search

Begin New Search Topic Cybersecurity Political Geography Europe

1. Issue brief: A NATO strategy for countering Russia

Author:
Ian Brzezinski
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
Russia is the most direct and significant threat to the security of NATO member states—and since Moscow’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 this threat continues to grow. It now encompasses the war in Ukraine, the militarization of the Arctic, hybrid warfare, and violations of arms control treaties. While NATO holds a significant advantage over Russia in military and economic power, an effective and unified strategy is needed to counter Russia’s aggression and fully harness the Alliance’s collective capabilities. To effectively counter Russia, NATO must defeat Russia in Ukraine, deter Russian aggression against NATO allies and partners, contain Russian influence beyond its borders, and degrade Russia’s ability and will to accomplish its revisionist agenda. That will require, among other actions, a significant increase of support and commitment to Ukraine’s defense against Russia, and a more robust Alliance force posture including the modernization of its nuclear deterrent, the permanent stationing of brigade elements along NATO’s eastern frontier and increased defense industrial capacities.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, Intelligence, International Organization, National Security, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Deterrence, Resilience, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine

2. Cybersecurity at Risk: How the EU’s Digital Markets Act Could Undermine Security across Mobile Operating Systems

Author:
Matthias Bauer and Dyuti Pandya
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE)
Abstract:
The EU’s fight against cybersecurity threats risks being undermined by the over-enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Article 5(4) could force mobile operating system providers to allow unregulated external links, bypassing critical security controls and exposing millions of smartphone users to cyber threats. The DMA focuses on market structure, overlooking how differences in operating system design affect security vulnerabilities. A one-size-fits-all approach ignores platform-specific security needs, leaving European users exposed to cyber threats. This risks undermining the EU’s economic security agenda, including initiatives like the Cybersecurity Strategy, Cyber Resilience Act, and NIS2 Directive, which aim to strengthen digital defences. The unintended consequences of this regulatory approach are already evident in Apple’s recent decisions to withhold certain features – such as advanced AI functionalities and enhanced app security tools – from the EU market due to DMA-related concerns. As a result, EU consumers face reduced access to innovative technologies, diminished user experiences, and weaker security protections compared to users in other regions. Now, Android, a widely used open-source system, may also be compromised by DMA enforcement, potentially limiting its flexibility, security, and the broader ecosystem of app developers and device manufacturers that rely on its open architecture.
Topic:
European Union, Cybersecurity, Digital Economy, and Digital Markets Act (DMA)
Political Geography:
Europe

3. Achieving Minimum Viable Cyber Resilience: A Leadership Top Ten “To-Do” List

Author:
Steve Hill
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Baku Dialogues
Institution:
ADA University
Abstract:
I t is a reflection of the growing maturity of the cybersecurity industry that when the UK’s Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Pat McFadden, a senior cabinet minister responsible for national security, claimed in a speech to the November 2024 NATO Cyber Defence Conference that Russia “can turn the lights off for millions,” he was roundly criticized for hyperbole. Pragmatism has replaced alarmism as the driver for persuading the state and the C-suite to invest in cybersecurity. The world has neither ever been more complex nor more fast-moving. But that is not the same as saying that the world is more dangerous. The same inter-connectedness that creates supply-chain fragility also acts as a disincentive for governments whose priorities are primarily inward-looking (domestic stability and growth) to escalate conflicts to outright regional or global warfare that will likely undermine that domestic agenda. We see therefore brinkmanship and “grey conflict” taking place throughout the world. This includes targeted assassinations, arson attacks, disruption of underseas cables, drone activity, social media election influence campaigns, and all kinds of cyber-attacks.
Topic:
NATO, Cybersecurity, Gray Zone, Resilience, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and North America

4. NATO's New Ambitions for Space

Author:
Béatrice Hainaut
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Institut français des relations internationales (IFRI)
Abstract:
Ahead of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, a devastating cyber attack targets Ukrainian army communications, exposing Western dependence and vulnerability to space technologies, and calling NATO's defensive posture into question. The longevity of the organization, which celebrates its 75th anniversary in 2024, is partly due to its ability to adapt to the international context. The war in Ukraine has undoubtedly strengthened its legitimacy and attractiveness. The massive use of space applications in Ukraine raises the question of the role of the Atlantic Alliance in providing space data and services to its member states: it does not have its own space capabilities, but its deterrence posture includes space. By equipping itself with a solid documentary corpus, space-focused centers, and access to national capabilities, the Alliance seeks to implement its vision of space as a theater of operations. This theater of operations aims at the integration and interoperability of the space assets of the various member states. For now, these are primarily American capabilities. NATO's space ambition then poses to the states the question of mobilizing financial and human resources. Moreover, deeper cooperation between NATO and the EU could presumably allow for the pooling of efforts.
Topic:
NATO, Science and Technology, European Union, Cybersecurity, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, North America, and Space

5. Who’s a national security risk? The changing transatlantic geopolitics of data transfers

Author:
Kenneth Propp
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Atlantic Council
Abstract:
The geopolitics of transatlantic data transfers have been unvarying for the past decade. European governments criticize the US National Security Agency (NSA) for exploiting personal data moving from Europe to the United States for commercial reasons. The US government responds, through a series of arrangements with the European Union, by providing assurances that NSA collection is not disproportionate, and that Europeans have legal avenues if they believe their data has been illegally used. Although the arrangements have not proven legally stable, on the whole they have sufficed to keep data flowing via subsea cables under the Atlantic Ocean. Now the locus of national security concerns about international data transfers has shifted from Brussels to Washington. The Biden administration and the US Congress, in a series of bold measures, are moving aggressively to interrupt certain cross-border data flows, notably to China and Russia. The geopolitics of international data flows remain largely unchanged in Europe, however. European data protection authorities have been mostly noncommittal about the prospect of Russian state surveillance collecting Europeans’ personal data. Decisions on whether to transfer European data to Russia and China remain in the hands of individual companies. Will Washington’s new focus on data transfers to authoritarian states have an impact in Europe? Will Europe continue to pay more attention to the surveillance activities of its liberal democratic allies, especially the United States? Is there a prospect of Europe and the United States aligning on the national security risks of transfers to authoritarian countries?
Topic:
National Security, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Geopolitics, Economy, and Digital Policy
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

6. Nuclear arms control policies and safety in artificial intelligence: Transferable lessons or false equivalence?

Author:
Eoin Micheál McNamara
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs (FIIA)
Abstract:
Multiple nuclear arms control treaties have collapsed in recent years, but analogies associated with them have returned as possible inspiration to manage risks stemming from artificial intelligence (AI) advancement. Some welcome nuclear arms control analogies as an important aid to understanding strategic competition in AI, while others see them as an irrelevant distraction, weakening the focus on new frameworks to manage AI’s unique and unprecedented aspects. The focus of this debate is sometimes too narrow or overly selective when a wider examination of arms control geopolitics can identify both irrelevant and valuable parallels to assist global security governance for AI. Great power leaders frequently equate AI advancement with arms racing, reasoning that powers lagging behind will soon see their great power status weakened. This logic serves to intensify competition, risking a spiral into more unsafe AI practices. The global norm institutionalization that established nuclear taboos can also stigmatize unethical AI practices. Emphasizing reciprocal risk reduction offers pragmatic starting points for great power management of AI safety. This research is part of the Reignite Multilateralism via Technology (REMIT) project, funded by the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 101094228.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Cybersecurity, Economic Policy, Artificial Intelligence, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and United States of America

7. Cyber Risk Reduction in China, Russia, the United States and the European Union

Author:
Lora Saalman, Fei Su, and Larisa Saveleva Dovgal
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
Abstract:
This report provides an overview of cyber risk reduction terminology and regulatory measures within China, Russia, the United States and the European Union. It finds, among other things, that China and Russia excel at clear visuals and steps, yet they also tend to lack linguistic clarity. China, the USA and the EU possess interagency and public–private sector coordination, while facing jurisdictional overlap. All four actors are securing their supply chains, yet China and Russia face challenges with burdensome penalties for non-compliance, and the USA and the EU confront obstacles to enforcement at the state and member-state levels. This report is intended to provide a baseline for engagement among China, Russia, the USA and the EU on their respective approaches to cyber risk reduction.
Topic:
European Union, Cybersecurity, Public-Private Partnership, and Risk Assessment
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, and United States of America

8. Estimating the vulnerability of industrial network infrastructure in Central and Eastern Europe

Author:
Mateusz Gzegorz Twardawa, Marek Smolik, Franciszek Rakowski, Jakub Kwiatkowski, and Norbert Meyer
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Security and Defence Quarterly
Institution:
War Studies University
Abstract:
Industrial infrastructure has suffered an unprecedented number of attacks in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). This situation can be attributed to many geopolitical factors, including hybrid military conflicts and criminal activity. Industrial networks belonging to the countries that were once under Soviet influence suffer from an elevated risk of cyberattacks. The goal of this work is to propose an easy way to estimate the vulnerabilities of industrial networks to cyber threats on a national level. Since analysis of the industrial vulnerability landscape is difficult, this study proposes an assessment based on the popularity of vulnerable technologies—VPc. This metric is composed of search volume data on keywords related to industrial network technologies and reported security vulnerabilities associated with these words. Data on 116 keywords was analysed and a country-specific VPc index was calculated for twenty states in CEE. The analysis of the popularity of industrial technologies and vendors in CEE reveals interesting information about the industrial security and vulnerability landscape. The results show that some countries (e.g. Estonia) have more resilient industrial infrastructure than others (e.g. Belarus). The results presented in this study are not in conflict with other data and estimation attempts, including the National Cyber Security Index (NCSI). As new vulnerabilities are noted every day, the industrial security landscape changes rapidly. Therefore, a new easy-to-use metric (VPc) can be successfully used for general estimations. This work shows that the VPc score agrees with other estimates and analyses, but as with any other general estimation tool, it must be used with caution.
Topic:
International Security, Infrastructure, Cybersecurity, Industry, Vulnerability, and Network Security
Political Geography:
Europe, Eastern Europe, and Central Europe

9. SCADvanceXP—an intelligent Polish system for threat detection and monitoring of industrial networks

Author:
Mateusz Gzegorz Twardawa, Marek Smolik, Franciszek Rakowski, Jakub Kwiatkowski, and Norbert Meyer
Publication Date:
12-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Security and Defence Quarterly
Institution:
War Studies University
Abstract:
SCADvanceXP is an industrial network intrusion detection system that scans and monitors data exchange between engineering stations, field divides, controllers, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA), and other elements of the operational technology network in detail. SCADvanceXP has the potential to detect advanced attacks on industrial infrastructures with the use of rulebased, signature-based, and behavioural detection methods, which are supported by sophisticated machine and deep learning models. As a system developed in Poland, it addresses the needs of industry in that region of Europe. The goal of this work was to assess SCADvanceXP’s potential to detect common industrial threats. In order to check SCADvanceXP’s potential, an effort was undertaken to evaluate its functionality on major industrial threats. For that purpose, twelve malware strains interfering with industrial systems were described. Later, the SCADvanceXP functionality was overlapped on malware behavioural and detection markers, pointing out exact mechanisms in SCADvanceXP that would detect analysed threats. The results show that SCADvanceXP is able to detect a wide range of attacks on industrial networks. SCADvanceXP’s rich functionality is able to provide a high standard of security. However, if a threat is affecting systems not directly connected with industrial networks, SCADvanceXP will not be able to detect it. SCADvanceXP only monitors industrial systems; hence, corporate networks must be protected by a different solution to provide the required level of security. Nonetheless, SCADvanceXP is dedicated to operating within industrial networks and does not have access to regular IT networks. It can be concluded that SCADvanceXP is a specialist tool providing desired security for industrial networks.
Topic:
International Security, Cybersecurity, Malware, and Industrial Networks
Political Geography:
Europe and Poland

10. Russia’s war against Ukraine: Lessons on infrastructure security and new technologies

Author:
Auriane Técourt and Maria Martisiute
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
European Policy Centre (EPC)
Abstract:
In 2022, Russia hit Ukraine with a major cyberattack and unleashed a full-scale war of aggression. This includes new technologies and AI-enabled capabilities such as the Bylina electronic warfare command-and-control system. Nord Stream and the Balticconnector also fell victim to sabotage attacks by hostile actors. In this Policy Brief, it is highlighted that the EU has stepped up its resilience and cybersecurity of critical infrastructure. However, the capacity to leverage innovative technologies and defensive AI remains underdeveloped. Furthermore, the protection of industrial control systems (ICS) remains unaddressed. As Russia upgrades its 2030 National AI Development Strategy, there is an urgency to integrate the security of industrial controls into the EU’s approach to the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure before Moscow strikes with deadlier offensives. It is also time to start building a measured, albeit scalable, deployment plan for new technologies that may be AI-enabled for European critical infrastructure in connectivity with Ukraine and Moldova. The Paper explains that the EU has strengthened cybersecurity and resilience of critical infrastructure, but there is still room for improvement. Considering the pace at which new technologies and AI-enabled technologies are developing, the following steps would enhance the security of European infrastructure: Possible attack scenarios. Mandatory SOCs and cyber hubs. Industrial control systems (ICS). Synergies between the EU and NATO. A deployment plan for new technologies that may include AI.
Topic:
Infrastructure, European Union, Cybersecurity, Artificial Intelligence, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Ukraine