Posts by SilviuCraescu:
- Approximately 95 percent of all military communications are routed through commercial lines. U.S. troops depend on these communications; in some cases, even highly sensitive intelligence data is transmitted in encrypted form through commercial systems. Although hostile countries may not be able to intercept and decipher the signals, they might be able to jam the civilian links, cutting off U.S. forces or rendering useless numerous intelligence
- The United States buys most of the microchips used in military systems from commercial vendors, many of which are located in foreign countries. The chips are dispersed throughout a variety of weapons and perform a range of functions. Some experts are concerned that someone might tamper with these chips, causing the weapons to fail to perform when needed.
- One lesson of Operation Desert Storm is that it is unwise to provoke a full-scale conventional military conflict with the United States and its allies. A more subtle alternative might be to send several hundred promising students to school to become computer experts and covert hackers. Such a cadre could develop the training and tactics to systematically tamper with U.S. government and civilian computer systems. But unlike pranksters, they would play for keeps, maximizing the damage they cause and maintaining a low profile so that the damage is hard to detect.
- Some strategic thinkers believe that “economic warfare” between countries is the next area of international competition. This may or may not be so, but it is possible for government experts skilled in covert action, to assist their countries’ industries by well-designed dirty tricks. For example, a bogus “beta tester” could sabotage the market for a new software product by alleging on an Internet bulletin board that the prerelease version of the program has major problems.
- Modern military aircraft, such as the B-2 bomber and F-22 fighter, are designed without a single blueprint or drawing.
- Like many large-scale industrial operations today, the military uses “just-in-time” methods for mobilization. That is, to cut costs and improve efficiency, the military services trim stockpiles of spare parts and reserve equipment to the minimum, and they use computers to make sure that the right part or equipment is delivered precisely when needed to the specific user.
-
The Ukraine Crisis and the NATO –Russia relationship.
-
The future of Afghanistan.
-
Approaching the new threats.
-
Reinforcement of the support for NATO Armed Forces.
-
Bolstering the strategic partnerships.
-
Enlarge the military presence in East Europe;
-
New exercises custom-tailored for environment preservation;
-
Relocation of equipment and logistics;
-
The NATO Readiness Action Plan Engagement;
-
Securing the NATO infrastructure and the necessary resources.
The Strategic Ambition of NATO and Command Structure Changes
May 26th, 2017By Silviu Craescu.
Comments Off on The Strategic Ambition of NATO and Command Structure Changes
Common Strategy US-EU On Information Warfare
November 27th, 2016
By Silviu Craescu.
Pentagon officials and defense analysts have a new topic to add to their list of post–Cold War concerns: information warfare (IW), cyber war and ,,lack” of informations. The term refers to the use of information systems—computers, communications networks, databases – for military or political advantage, either by the United States or by an sponsor actor state unfriendly of US.
The United States is potentially vulnerable to IW attack. The United States, in civilian as well as military matters, is more dependent on electronic information systems than is anyone else in the world. The possibility that computer and communications system to be target of an hostile parties—countries action, terrorist groups, religious sects multinational corporations, and so on could attack civilian information systems directly, is very high. Attacking these systems could be easier, less expensive and certainly less risky than, say, sabotage, assassination, hijacking or hostage-taking, and a quick cost-effectiveness calculation may make IW an aggressor’s strategy of choice.The United States should be able to develop new military strategies using IW in the conditions of new Cold War, like European Union develop his strategy for combat information warfare and to implemented the security in communications field. Cybernetic security, terrorism, and critical information infrastructure – new challenges for the management of security culture and the European geopolitical space. The objectives of the European Union in the new global context.
On the 30th of March 2009, the European Commission issued a communiqué regarding the protection of critical information infrastructure (“Protecting Europe against large-scale cyber-attacks: improving the degree of preparation, security, and resilience”) by which it established a plan (“the plan of action concerning the protection of critical information infrastructure”) for consolidating the security and resilience of vital information technology and communications infrastructure. Its aim was to stimulate and support the development of a high level of response, security, and resilience capacity on a national and European level. This approach was largely approved by the Council in 2009. The plan of action concerning the protection of critical information infrastructure is built on five pillars: preparation and prevention; spotting and reaction; risk reduction and recovery after incidents; international cooperation; and the criteria for the critical European infrastructure in the sector of information technology and communications. It establishes the measures to be taken with respect to every pillar by the Commission, member states and/or industry, with the support of the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA).
The digital agenda for Europe, adopted in May 2010, and the associated conclusions of the Council have underlined the common vision according to which confidence and security are fundamental preliminary conditions for using on a wide scale information technology and communications and for achieving thus the objectives concerning the dimension of “intelligent growth” of the Strategy Europe 2020. The digital agenda for Europe underlines the necessity that all interested parties unite their forces in a global effort in order to guarantee the security and resilience of information technology and communications infrastructure by emphasizing prevention, degree of preparation, and sensitivity, as well as to develop efficient and coordinated mechanisms in order to react to the increasingly sophisticated forms of attacks and cyber crimes.This approach guarantees that the preventive, as well as the reaction dimensions are challenges which are taken seriously.
The Commission has adopted in September 2010 a directive proposal regarding the attacks on information systems. It concerns the consolidation of the fight against cybernetic attacks by better cooperation between the criminal law systems of member states and between judicial authorities and other competent authorities. Moreover, the proposal introduces some dispositions regarding the ways of fighting new forms of cybernetic attacks, namely botnets. At the same time the Commission forwarded a proposal for a new mandate of consolidation and modernization of the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA) in order to increase networks’ degree of reliability and security. The consolidation and modernization of ENISA will allow the European Union, member states, and interested parties from the private sector to develop capacities and training to prevent, detect, and approach challenges pertaining to information security.
Moreover, the digital agenda for Europe, the Stockholm program/its plan of action, and EU’s Strategy of internal security in action underlines the Commission’s commitment to construct a digital environment in which all Europeans could express their full economic and social potential. This is why security culture involves cyber security, but at the same time involves proactive solutions for using human potential and community democratic participation, which could discourage security threats. The communiqué of the European Commission reviews the results that have been achieved since the adoption of the plan of action in what concerns the protection of critical information infrastructure. It describes future expected measures for each action both at an European and at an international level and it focuses at the same time on the global dimensions of the challenges and importance of increasing cooperation between the national administrations of member states and the private sector on national, European, and international levels, in order to handle global interdependencies.
The global geopolitical dimension of these threats is becoming increasingly clear. We are experiencing in the present a tendency to use information technology and communications in order to achieve political, economic, and military supremacy, including through offensive capabilities. “Cybernetic warfare” and “cybernetic terrorism” are sometimes mentioned in such contexts.
Moreover, as shown by the recent events in the Southern Mediterranean region, some regimes are ready and capable to forbid or undermine arbitrarily the access of their own citizens to informatic means of communication – especially the Internet and mobile communications – for political reasons. Such unilateral internal interventions could have severe consequences on the rest of the world.
Information technology is a U.S. strong suit, and military force could use this know-how to improve defense capabilities, against hostile attack and to defeat any aggressors—and to accomplish both missions at the lowest possible cost.
U.S. military planners are already taking the first steps in this direction.
But consider some of the scenarios that the Department of Defense has studied:
systems costing hundreds of millions of dollars.
Rather, they use computer-assisted design/computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM), in which all records and manufacturing instructions are maintained on electronic media and shared on a closed network. This makes it possible for plants across the country to share databases and to manufacture components that fit together with incredible precision. But it also makes these programs dependent on the reliability and security of the network, which might be compromised by an insider with access.
Virtually all communications systems are computer-controlled. Virtually all aircraft and land vehicles have computer-based components.
Most transportation systems—aircraft, railroads, urban transit—are directed by remote communications and computers. Thus, virtually all of these civilian systems are also vulnerable to IW attack and could become targets to unfriendly parties.
The U.S. advantage is in information technology—intelligence, communications, precision-guided munitions, night vision equipment, stealth technology, and electronic countermeasures. As a result, the United States and its coalition partners were well-coordinated and could adjust their operations in real time, whereas Iraqi forces were isolated, disorganized, and blind. It’s unlikely future foes will repeat Iraq’s mistakes and permit opponent to claim “information superiority” on the battlefield. Indeed, a country or organization with even a rudimentary knowledge of IW could take countermeasures that can greatly reduce the U.S. advantage. Also, because the U.S. advantage could be potentially hard tested and reduced it will be necessary to monitor the changing IW threat and develop new methodes.
Dealing with the IW threat and especially with aggressive attackers who use IW as their main weapon against US, in the case of vital military communications links and computer systems, it may be possible to build hardened “point defenses,” taking extra steps to thwart attackers. These could include, for example, building dedicated transmission lines for communications, isolating critical computers from all outside networks, and using hardware and software security systems that might be excessively expensive or inconvenient for commercial use but which are necessary for defense vital informational system.
Comments Off on Common Strategy US-EU On Information Warfare
From the wells Nato Summit To Warsaw Nato Summit
April 14th, 2016
by Silviu Craescu .
The heads of state and governments who attended the NATO Council Summit held in Wales on September 4 and 5, 2014 reached a mutual understanding concerning the next NATO moves.
It was acknowledged the fact that this meeting is taking place at a most critical time for the Euro-Atlantic security.
The new security threats, the Ukrainian crisis, the crisis management, the instability situation in steady growing up across the Middle East and North Africa, were the main topics under debates, were considered the hard core of the Summit’s Final Statement.
Endorsement of Ukraine was henceforth jointly declared as a both military – strategic objective and as an axiological bulwark mainstay to defend the fundamental values, of the democracy, human rights, individual freedom and the ruling of law. In this respect the Alliance stand point was re-confirmed on the strategic concept of collective defense and co-operational security. One of the NATO targets is to secure the Alliance cohesion, developing the partnership with the strategic Allies. The top priority is the NATO reinforcement as set out at the Summit which means to develop the long term operative reaction capabilities development in the context of the latest breaking geopolitical mutations and asymmetrical threats. In this respect were adopted a series of strategic measures included in the NATO Readiness Action Plan. This is meant to bolster a rapid reaction, inter-operational capabilities and the counterstrike operations against changes and security threats in present and in future, potential or actual.
The topic which the NATO Summit focused on most was Russian aggression against Ukraine incurring geopolitical and security tangles, and in the NATO Council view regarded as developing long term consequences on security and peace in Europe, but on the entire world stability as well.
The Great Britain prime minister, Mr David Cameron, recalled the NATO Summit in 1990 held in the great Britain as well, in order to invoke the privileged partnership with the US and highlighted the importance of NATO cohesion to the joint effort of building up a safe world of peace and prosperity. Mr Cameron also stated that in an age of major technological developments and globalization thrive huge benefits and opportunities, but also the higher risk that enormous capabilities to become the possession of terrorist groups.
Mr David Cameron further warned on the latest breaking global scale security threats, represented specifically by the ascent of the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant.
The NATO convened to re-assert once more the determination, perseverance and hold-together unity in agreement with the Washington Treaty Act, which constitutes the very foundation act and legal basis of the NATO making, reference being made to the final statement but also to other documents as well, such as the Article 5 in the Treaty which in the opinion of the heads of states and governments summoned in Wales represents the legal foundation of the collective system of defense and security, a defensive system in a class of its own at world scale, this being in the opinion of the the NATO Council a serious and major responsibility, which must be assumed.
The Article 5 in the NATO claims: ,, The Parties agree that a military attack against one or more of them either in Europe or in North America shall be construed as an attack against all Parties; therefore, these convene that, should such an attack occurs, each of these Parties, invoking the rights of legitimate self-defense, both individual and collective, acknowledged in the Article from the United Nations Chart, shall help the Party or Parties so attacked, immediately taking up, both individually and in mutual agreement with the other Parties, the measure deemed as necessary to be taken, including the use of armed force, for the purpose of re-establishing and secure the entire NATO coverage area.
Any armed attack of this kind and any measure taken as a follow-up shall be immediately notified to the Security Council. These measures shall come to an end only at the time when the Security Council shall take the necessary measures for re-establishing and maintain the international peace and security.” ( The NATO Treaty Act signed up at Washington on April 4, 1949).
In fact, the prime minister David Cameron considered the annexation of Crimea by Russia, as an illegal action and further invoked the relevance of collective defense, guaranteed in the Article 5, of defending and save-guarding the liberty of territories and populations by way of abiding to the principle of national sovereignty of the states, which is guaranteed by the United Nations Chart as well. This was the also the general consensus of the attendants who joined the NATO Summit Meeting held in Wales.
The top 5 priorities of the NATO Summit Meeting were:
The NATO decided to considerably enlarge the military presence in East Europe. This strategic NATO relocation, has a rather very special geostrategic dimension and in a lesser degree it should be deemed as a purely political act.
In the context of the priorities and brand new ways of tackling the current security issues as sketched at the Summit there were established concrete measures and timelines for implementation:
Naturally, these tasks are provided to be carried out in joint co-operation with the allies, being construed as a counter-measure to Ukrainian crisis, deemed as a threat on regional, Euro-Atlantic stability (security). The Alliance re-assured its Eastern members concerning the support and security preservation efforts, meaning to issue an operational kick-back to this crisis.
Another assumed decision, rated as a third in rank NATO Summit priority, and of the North Atlantic Council, respectively involves the strategic objective of the proper financing and replenish by the NATO member-states, of the budget allotted for Defense, each of its members having the duty to endow the army forces and provide a fast reaction capability at short notice, featured with an effective command and control system in place, but also endowed with a high performance communication system.
In this respect it has to be mentioned also that at the NATO Summit Meeting the decision was made to upgrade the support granted to Ukraine concerning a future development of communication facilities and of the command and control system, of the inter-operability.
Among the asymmetrical and new threats against state security, and especially where the Euro-Atlantic space is concerned, it was approached the cyber-terrorist threats issue.
Not so long time back, in 2009, the European Commission adopted the document ,, Protection of Europe against cybernetic attacks and major disruptions: enhancing the degree in training, safe-conduct and resilience”, adopting also ,,The Enhancement Plan for Informatics Critical Infrastructures”.
The measures taken at the EU level on upgrading the cyber security, were in fact updated this year, so that we may talk here about some institutional convergence, a specific inter-dependent and synergic co-operation at the NATO – EU level.
A new strategic measures will be hold at the NATO Summit in Warsaw (Poland) who is preview for july 2016, in the continuation of Wales Summit.
Twenty-five years after the fall of the Iron Curtain in Europe, modern-day Poland is by many measures the most successful case of post-communist political and economic transition to market-democracy in Europe. Hence, U.S. President Barack Obama in his speech at Warsaw’s Castle Square in June 2014, rightfully coined the country’s progress as an economic “Miracle on the Vistula”.
Also in the field of security, Poland wasted no time consolidating its position in Europe’s post-Cold War order. Fifteen years ago, in 1999, Poland, together with Hungary and the Czech Republic, joined NATO. The country’s persistence to join the Alliance and the success of its accession paved the way for further NATO enlargement eastwards. As Ronald Asmus, a former U.S. official in the Clinton Administration and a prime architect of NATO expansion, famously writes in his 2002 book Opening NATO’s Door: “The key country was Poland. Its size, strategic importance, and history provided the original impetus for the push for enlargement”. And so it happened. By 2004, NATO would welcome seven other post-communist states and guarantee the future security of nearly one hundred million people from the Baltics to the Black Sea.
Since these historical events, Poland has played a responsible role in the future of European and transatlantic security, contributing to NATO’s continued military and political integration. On the military front, over 25,000 Polish military personnel have served in Afghanistan since Poland joined the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in 2002, Polish MIG-29s have participated in NATO Air Policing operations in the Baltic since 2006, and Poland regularly forms the theatre for major allied military exercises, such as Steadfast Jazz in November 2013 or Sabre Junction in August 2014. Politically, unlike most other allies, Poland’s growing economy has allowed it to spawn an ambitious military modernization program, and Polish President Bronisław Komorowski has promised that his country would increase its defense spending to 2 percent of its GDP in order to meet the official NATO standard. At the 2014 NATO Summit in Wales, allies also agreed that Warsaw would host the next Summit in 2016-a nod to the successful transformation of Poland and much of Central Europe over the past quarter century and Poland’s political weight in NATO.
Poland’s efforts in the domain of security and defense are certainly no luxury. The security environment today is shifting rapidly. In less than a decade, global strategic trends have changed dramatically, and the dream of expansion of transatlantic security has been replaced by a general feeling of uncertainty. The events in the Levant, the Sahel, and Ukraine have revealed a deeply unstable European neighbourhood, combined with an economic crisis that has led to unhelpful military restraint. Transatlantic cooperation is now facing a very different security environment, in which Poland, Europe and the United States will have to realistically assess how to remain credible security providers.
Naturally, Poland is particularly concerned by the disruptive events in Eastern Europe that have put its military, energy and economic security at risk. The unrest in Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, to Russia’s revisionist foreign policy and revanchist military power, to the European Union’s inability or unwillingness to take a stand in its East, and a growing sense that the U.S. is disengaging from European defense matters, are propelling Poland and many other European nations into an era of increasing uncertainty about their own security. In addition, a question remains as to whether NATO’s response to these challenges has effectively strengthened the Alliance’s image of a power to be taken seriously. The turmoil in Ukraine, for instance, has been widely interpreted as a boost for NATO’s strategic unity, but the crisis has also cast serious doubt in NATO’s most eastern member states over whether the Alliance would come to their rescue if they were to face aggression from a revisionist power.
An Alliance increasingly preoccupied by deterrence and strategic credibility will be more receptive to the dangers faced by its border states. For Poland, as the host of the 2016 NATO Summit, there is an opportunity worth seizing. In the next two years, Warsaw will have the chance to more actively shape the NATO agenda, and to seek, together with other allies and the international staff at NATO HQ, solutions for concerns surrounding the future of Alliance resources and capabilities, the commitment of member states toward Article 5 obligations, or the support of their public opinions for high-visibility military operations. NATO has the important task ahead of addressing its most pressing vulnerabilities: from closing the gap on diverging perceptions of threats among member states, to tackling its declining strategic credibility internally and externally, to making the institution more flexible to perform the tasks of collective defense, collective security and crisis management simultaneously.
Hosting the next NATO Summit also offers Poland the chance to encourage the timely implementation of important decisions that were taken in Wales. One such decision is NATO’s Readiness Action Plan that should underpin deterrence with a continuous military preserve in Eastern Europe and the proven capacity to reinforce quickly if one ally was to face aggression. Warsaw has played a very active role in this debate, and the proposed expansion of the NATO outpost base at Szczecin in western Poland therefore forms a critical move to reassure allies in the region. Getting the Readiness Action Plan right is essential because NATO will not present a united front if certain allies continue to feel inadequately protected while others feel that enhanced security in one region is at the expense of NATO’s presence in their own neighbourhood.
Europe’s Iron Curtain might have fallen twenty five years ago, but today the goal of a “Europe whole and free” is again in peril. The NATO Summit 2014 was a positive step toward identifying the most pressing priorities for the Alliance, but it will be essential to create continuity among the conclusions that were arrived at and turn new ideas that were embraced into actions. As Poland and the allies plan for the 2016 NATO Summit in Warsaw, Poland, it should use the lessons of its own history, provide a platform to foster the implementation of NATO’s priorities, and play a leading role in shaping the conversation within the Alliance in the coming years.
A rather complex problem is the NATO reform.
The NATO reform remains still an open to debate topic, even if it either was not analysed actually in extenso during the NATO Summit Meeting, or the media coverage was fuzzy or scarce if any.
It ought to be said, however related to some scepticism, that neither NATO is bound to disintegrate nor the Alliance shall last just for a moment’s necessity purpose. On the occasion of the NATO Summit, it was highlighted the fact that no today-for-tommorow-only decisions shall be made and that the NATO is non some remote, high and recluse club minding a bunch of limited interests. On the contrary, future milestones were set also related to the global security.
We anticipate that the NATO globalization just echoes to the entire society globalization in a deeper sense at all the levels of its intricate levels, structures and components.
The NATO aims to achieve and put the basis of the complex future of the security coverage at the world scale, designing right from these days a brand new military paradigm, conceived as a paradigm of the world security, endowed with a strong protectionist-proactive oriented and offensive-potential dimension.A rather complex problem is the NATO reform.A rather complex problem is the NATO reform.
Comments Off on From the wells Nato Summit To Warsaw Nato Summit
The Pan-European Kalegi project and the new apartheid policy of Muslim migration into Europe
February 5th, 2016By Silviu Craescu.
The Muslim migration towards EUROPE develops new concealed dimensions and interests. The PAN-EUROPEAN project whose foundations were laid in Vienna, in 1922, under the leadership of the mysterious character RICHARD COUDENHOVE KALEGI, high dignitary of the powerful Masonic lodge B’NAI BRITH, which unites the strongest Jewish families on WALL STREET and in NEW YORK CITY, heads of state and government, heads of the most powerful financial, media, oil, and arms corporations, and which has for purpose the establishment of a plutocratic corporatist government, based upon a federation of nations lead by either USA or Germany. Towards this end, following the reunification of GERMANY, a competition and strategic battle between old Europe and new Europe began. Present-day Germany finds itself in a keen competition with the USA for its own European supremacy, whence its differences with Great Britain.
In what consists the KALEGI plan? In effect, in the gradual elimination of nation-states, and democracy, which are to be replaced with a dictatorship of a minority, of corporatist plutocratic elites via the adoption of laws directed against the people.
According to this theory, the mixed race, characterized by cowardice, laziness, superiority instincts, and disobedience, is to be ruled by the new financial and military plutocracy, which is to be considered the superior race. They want an enslaved Europe, where forms of economic control and social selection, neo-Darwinist in nature, will allow only certain categories of people and ethnicities to benefit from the European law, while the rest are to be condemned to marginalization.
At that times, politicians have approved of KALEGI’s strategy, and the banks, the media, and American and Western secret services have contributed towards accomplishing this grandiose project. The League of Nations has been used as a cover to launch the PAN-EUROPEAN project.
In hidden circles it is known that the true founder of the EU, which dictates through BRUSSELS and MAASTRICHT, is Kalegi, in whose honor an order, conferred every two years to powerful supporters of the project, has been created. Most recently, the German Chancellor ANGELA MERKEL and HERMAN van ROMPUY have been conferred this order.
The KALEGI project, myth or reality?
If we are to analyze the evolution of the project to unite the European states sixty years after its launching, we stuporously realize that, even though there were moments that slowed its advancement (the second world war), we are nonetheless close to the end, European and especially German leaders talking more vehemently about the necessity of creating THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE, attacking EUROPE’s Judaeo-Christian roots (by removing from the Treaty of LISBON the article making reference to European Christianity, as an element of unity and identity), nations, and nationalism, and encouraging extremism and xenophobia.
It is clear that Germany coordinates and directs an apartheid policy. It is predicted that the wave of immigrants stops at the geostrategic frontiers of Eastern Europe. Actually, the anti migrationist policy ressurects old tendencies of oligarchization and fascitization of Europe, encoded today in dividing the continent into spheres of influence and applying the neo-Malthusian and neo-Darwinian theories which threaten the rights and the biological, social, cultural, and national integrity of traditional Europe.
If we research deeper, we realize that the constant lobby by the project’s supporters has become more concrete following the adoption in the year 2000 of the UN report, “POPULATION DIVISION: Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?” where it is underlined that by 2025 EUROPE will need more than 160 million workers from the MIDDLE EAST, AFRICA, and ASIA, in order to save itself. Not coincidentally, the former Director-General of the WHO (World Health Organization), Mr. CHRIHOLM G. BOCK, a relentless supporter of the KALEGI plan, says that “what should be applied anywhere in the world is the limitation of mixed births and marriages with the purpose of creating a single race in a single world ruled by a central authority”.
The manipulation of public opinion towards receiving and integrating the MIDDLE EASTERN and especially SYRIAN wave of immigrants, involving non-governmental organizations, the media, political and governmental figures from the USA and EUROPE, as well as the tough reactions from German officials who threaten with economic sanctions EU countries that do not accept the mandatory quotas, prove the incredible force at the disposal of this hidden machine which imposes upon Europeans the denial of their own origins, cultural and ethnic identity, in the name of globalism and multiculturalism.
The problem which will definetely generate intense debates in international and European ruling bodies is: who is financing this international trafficking of migrants and why was it EUROPE that was chosen as a destination instead of rich Arab countries, which are involved in the financial and logistical support of ISIS (SAUDI ARABIA, QATAR, the UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, MALAYSIA)?
Why have the USA and CANADA, having been involved in supporting, financially and militarily, the Syrian opposition, and afterwards terrorist organizations affiliated to ISIS, not widely opened their gates to the migrants, and prefer to pass instead the burden on EUROPE?
According to information processed by European special services, only 10% of the refugees come from SYRIA, the rest being from AFGHANISTAN, PAKISTAN, YEMEN, LEBANON, SOMALIA, NIGERIA, LIBYA, TUNISIA.
Austrian espionage revealed that American non-governmental organizations, having behind them the billionnaire SOROS, have created a cofinancing model and are contributing substantially to paying the costs of transporting migrants towards EUROPE, amounting up to 14,000 EUROS/person.
If we are to make an analytical synthesis derived from studying the Muslim invasion of EUROPE, we can conclude that this diversion, which is well-organized by Euro-American radical hidden circles and has GERMANY’s agreement, is aimed at dividing European states and weakening EU’s economic power, a process which will culminate in time with the birth of an neo-Darwinian European SUPERSTATE, financed by the same corporations which ensured access to power of the Nazi regime in Germany, a confirmation of the Kalegi project.
Interestingly enough, the future of EUROPE does not look too bright. The current challenge will disrupt personal and collective comfort and safety, will deepen economic and moral crisis in Europe, announcing a revival of extremism and xenophobia and the access to power of far right political parties by generating escalating interethnic and religious conflicts.
The countries of the Danube’s south basin will find themselves once more faced with a new strategic challenge, by being caught in the net of RUSSIAN, TURKISH, HUNGARIAN, and BRICS interests, and being forced to survive these historical avatars.
ROMANIA needs to understand that it is necessary more than ever to be united around national interests, to be prepared for war game scenarios, and to manifest caution and wisdom in managing political, diplomatic, and security crises which could arise following tense relationships inside the EU, and especially relationships with UKRAINE and HUNGARY.
Comments Off on The Pan-European Kalegi project and the new apartheid policy of Muslim migration into Europe
The war on immigration
October 29th, 2015By Silviu Craescu.
The Russian Federation is supporting financially in a direct manner the Arab immigration for economic, political, and security purposes.
As a matter of fact, by using the pretext of a refugee humanitarian crisis, Russia is increasing its military presence in Eastern Europe, by taking part in common exercises and maneuvers together with Serbia, one of its traditional allies.
Not coincidentally, Hungary took exceptional measures, by building a wall which is part of Moscow’s strategic plan of returning to the Cold War era, a wall remembering the famous Berlin Wall.
Not coincidentally, the most serious conflicts were those at the border between Serbia and Hungary. Hungary, having the most radical circles and extremist organizations, as well an anti-EU policy which has recently been exacerbated, is a leader in representing and promoting euroscepticism.
Northern Europe, Hungary, Greece, and Serbia have anti-immigration policies. As a matter of fact, Hungary is Russia’s Trojan horse inside Europe. Russia finances all left-wing and right-wing extremist movements across Europe and is looking forward to corrupt the governments of democratic states in formation.
Europe is mobilizing militarily NOT against the immigrants, but to counter the increasingly active Russian military presence, which is seen as a threat to NATO integrity. Efforts are being made towards “isolating” the crisis in Eastern Europe and “saving” the EU, actually the EU’s core.
The European Union will become more autocratic and, wanting to preserve its institutions, will limit free movement and other rights and liberties. This is the greatest danger. By acting this way, Western Europe admits being in a technical war with the Russian Federation.
The chief of EU diplomacy, Federica Mogherini, admitted that the EU lost the informational war with Russia in what concerns the immigration issue. Things are starting to become quite clear.
Efforts were made to politically corrupt Germany by co-involving it with Hungary in the so-called “immigration humanitarian crisis”. These efforts were not successful, but Austria, an older business partner of Russia, adopted the vaunted measures of programmed chaos.
Russia is simulating a humanitarian crisis, and the French-German EU, a security crisis which tends to become real. The US takes advantage of the situation to prepare the intervention in Syria, by convincing its main European partners.
For reasons of public image improvement, the illegal immigrants were recognized as being refugees, though without a legal document attesting it, and only after the international coalition acted in Syria against Assad.
It is obvious that the number of immigrants in Europe is much higher, around 2,000,000, otherwise special measures of assistance and security would not be necessary. Actually, immigrants and their traffickers are financed by hundreds of agencies of money transfer and tens of banks, created via Moscow-Libya-Nigeria-Syria-ISIS.
These people are not exclusively from Syria and they receive expensive fake passports and identity documents. Agadez is a place in Sahara which has known economic flourishing in last few years. “Libya is profitable”, admits a Muslim with suspicious affiliations, according to intelligence sources.
It is a poor country, lacking in infrastructure and devastated by war, but full of banks, dubious financial agencies and people who became wealthy overnight and who own limousines and Western goods. Contraband is flourishing, and various centers of power are using it the same way the USSR used to act on the anti-American China-Pakistan-India-Afghanistan-Iran corridor.
Things changed, but Russia did not quit its hegemonic ambitions, looking towards Northern Europe and the Mediterranean for resources and control of continental strategic drift. This is why the EU is literally bombing the Mediterranean.
It is a strategic point, one of expansion of terrorism, of contraband, and illegal immigration, which the Saharan mafia is using to make phone transactions with top Russian officials. It is clearly a dirty budget. It is not a humanitarian crisis, but a security crisis, much amplified by anti-EU centres of power, represented by the Eurasian and the Euro-American areas which find themselves in a state of competition.
It is well-known that the immigration business is a multibillion dollars business. But it is not said that Russia is involved in this business. We shouldn’t be surprised given the Russian presence in the Mediterranean and its involvement in Syria.
The US has officially denounced this state of affairs. All that would remain would be that the USA include Russia on the list of sponsors of international terrorism.
Comments Off on The war on immigration
The hybrid warfare: The newly hatched out threat against global stability
March 26th, 2015
By Silviu Craescu.
The open season was just trumpeted on shaping up ghostlike statal entities coexisting within the boundaries of other legitimate states. Novarussia and ISIS are good textbook examples. Both of them are financially backed by other states and disturb, behead institutions and both of them want to conquer other territories.
When a country is under attack from conventional ground, maritime or air forces the countermeasures to be taken are expected to make a rather pretty clear picture. But, what happens when it is attacked by a composite mix comprising special forces, information or disinformation briefing campaigns seasoned and spiced with back door under the table dirty deals? What would look like the best answer in this case? And furthermore yet, how the international organisations dedicated to human right and global security defense, such as UNO or NATO, could adapt themselves to such types of assaults?
General Philip Breedlove, the NATO commander says: „Russia’s usage of uniformless troops, so called „the little green men” and probably the most amazing piece of information in the blitz krieg I have ever seen in the entire history of war intelligence, was just a part of the first Russian assault in Ukraine”. „What we see in Russia these days, in this hybrid approach of war waging is that they make use of all the tools and instruments available and under their control, just to stir and enflame the spirits, then to proceed to exploit them through military specific mechanisms”, he says.
What is the hybrid war anyway?
„The war categories are obscure and they simply do not belong in the elegant and clean cut case studies category. We may very well expect to see more instruments to be simultaneously deployed in complex forms of hybrid warfare”, says Robert M. Gates, the US secretary of Defense. The hybrid war is a summation of two opposing forces, legal and illegal, conventional and unconventional, regulated and non regulated, put up in order to mount an assault. The hybrid war may be defined as a contemporary form of guerrilla skirmish blending in both modern technology and modern methods of mobilisation and involves four threats: traditional, non regulated, catastrophic and highly disruptive terrorism which exploits technology to level the score against military superiority. Seen from the media angle, it is the concentration of the asymmetric warfare ops waged on three decisive battlefields : against the population living in the conflict zone, against the back home population and against the international community.
The simultaneous combination of weapons, used by enemy
The enemy shall use a simultaneous combination of conventional weapons, non regulated warfare, terrorism and criminal behaviour on battlefield with the purpose of reaching political targets. In waging such a warfare there shall be employed disguised hybrid soldiers blended in and undercover within the civil population. The hybrid warfare is the best definition of the modern conflicts, as it highlights the non regulated war, the civil war, the insurgence and the terrorism. And so the hybrid wars are both of physical spectrum and as conceptual dimension. The physical spectrum is a fight against an armed enemy. By conceptual conflict we understand a fight with the purpose of gaining the control of and the support from the native population dwelling in the theatre of war, the proactive support of the fronts back home helping them to withstand against the intervention of other nations and the support of the international community. In order to make safe and stabilize the native population, the acting forces should immediately rebuild and safeguard the security, the basic public services, the local government, the self defense army units and the most essential elements of economy.
A brand new form of warfare
It is a brand new form of warfare, non conformist in flavour where are employed all ways of mounting attacks. War looks no longer the way it used to be back in the Middle Ages when troopers were aligned facing each other. These are non regulated armies, non conformist where any conceivable kind of attack may be used, even with troops bearing no military rank ensigns, the very way Russia does lately in Ukraine, guerrilla forces equipped with modern war weaponry and the cybernetic attack. This is a part of a brand new war soon to engulf the entire planet: the hybrid warfare. It is way more subversive than the war against terrorism simply because just anybody could trigger it provided this ‘anybody’ gets athwart some system and thrives to make it his own country. Cutting out the electricity in some city and instantly the panic strikes; if we cut the water supply off we might go ahead and lay the entire zone in submission. Nobody knows about our true colours because we pretend we are civilians wearing civilian clothes.
Combined methods
The partisans in the World War II had readily available ample supplies of Russian uniforms and German outfits also. In 2002, the Chechens used to mount attacks even in their own cities on their own turf just to off-track the Russian schemes of control and simply to wreak confusion. Probably the most recent example of hybrid war could be the Hezbollah performance in Lebanese war in 2006. During this conflict the Hezbollah has fought side by side jointly with Israeli army up to the point of impasse due to using of fixed points, in disguise and intricate subterranean tunnels and the conventional war manoeuvres of the infantry in the the Lebanese villages. The final outcome of these tactics was that the defense Israeli forces failed to conquer even one single village along the Lebanon – Israel border. The might of Israel, with modern up to date military capabilities and state of the art air force avionics, were all of them good for nothing when facing the Hezbollah units who used reinforced bunkers and latest breaking Russian guns able to destroy just any type of armoured vehicle. At some point, Hezbollah used a missile against the INS Hanit ship, killing four seamen aboard. All these methods were further enhanced by the successful break and tapping of the mobile cellular phones netcomm system used by the Israeli troops, therefore having first hand and real time information about the enemy’s moves in the theatre.
The Might of Hezbollah
The Hezbollah is far more than just a mere military force and its might has its roots just in this very reason. Its manifold structure comprises political, social, diplomatic and informational components making these all stand as the toughest backbone for its military structure. This foundation, built up in years of accruing humanitarian aids, of painstaking and careful erection of the infrastructure, careful education of the Lebanese people, would be able to keep itself balanced even in a case of military defeat. Like the deeply set root of a plant, the other implication of Hezbollah shall come to full blossom many years later on springing up fresh force to replenish and replace the ones fallen on the battle fields.
The international law, enforced by the Putin’s own interpretation
At some point, during the Ukraine crisis, Russia had deployed 40,000 troops along the Ukraine border, yet since the seed of instability was sawn in Ukraine, the conventional forces were no longer the one to be used but rather other mixed flavour techniques and unorthodox, called in one word ‘hybrid’. Russia is using this war for a national advantage, taking up territories, enforcing its will on the premises, invading and annexing territories. Russia uses commandos pretending they are non Russian.
Putin himself declared that the defending of Russian ethnic groups does not depend on the country where they live, neither on the laws thereof, nor of the government of the Constitution Act of the country where they currently reside, but depends on the Russian law. Which is resented as a shock for all that we are currently familiar with as being the international law.
Comments Off on The hybrid warfare: The newly hatched out threat against global stability
The New Asymmetric Threats to the Global Security
February 9th, 2015
By Silviu Craescu.
Today the international security is a milieu widely open to the strategic opportunities resulted from the global competition between the big powers. The uni-polar world is counterbalanced by the multi polar world. The European Union and the Far East represent new power poles in actual development and re-cast. The disappearance of the economic barriers and the ideology blocks between states and some group of states has risen both the risk and the need for security in Europe, the trend being a sweeping democratic wave through the entire world. The security crisis in Ukraine, represents a test for Occident, and a way by which Russia, as a conflict fabricator seeks to enforce its hegemonic type strategic interests.
It is clear that the season is open for competition between the Eurasian and the Euramerican zones. Ukraine makes just some pretext from the viewpoint of purely political justification of Russia since from the economic, geostrategic and geopolitical angle Ukraine is seen as some spatial vector through which Russia acts to proactively menace the economy, stability and the security of the European Union and the entire Europe.
In Ukraine are currently experimenting the modern practices of the information warfare, economic warfare and energy warfare ,but also for planned diversions, sabotage, or media warfare as well.
Russia seeks economic interests only and defends its economic interests infringing the Ukraine’s national sovereign status by fuelling a hybrid war under the shelter of the international right principle, by way of involving special forces and perfectly camouflaged mercenaries and without any identification marks or tokens, which using specialized diversion means could invoke the anti-terrorist argument for taking over the ,,responsibility” of the triggered warfare, so that could be further avoided the legal – military consequences incurred by any classical warfare, which violates the international rights principle and other internationally endorsed treaties.
Beside its hegemonic interests, Russia actually seeks to deploy a strategic foreplay on multiple plans by which to forward its own political-economic aims and to represent a world actor currently in a global competition with no prominent globalization leader looming ahead, yet.
So, what Russia fails to comprehend is that the Western World represents a values system where the mentality of the Old World find no backing anymore.
The new threats to the international security, are based on the terrorism sustained from black money and corruption which rake the newly hatched democracies, the criminality and the economic oligarchy which incur damages to citizens’ rights and liberties sub-mining of the national sovereignty. Russia turned out as one of the world class exporters of insecurity, across-the-border criminal activities, corruption and across-economy organised crime, gun smuggling, algorithmic terrorism and a strategic allied of the anti-globalisation groups’ ideological extremism.
The new global threats are a consequence of the world polarisation, but also a hassle between the locked down ideological systems and those open and free ones.
Russia although claim the economic supremacy, still left however the promoter of a corrupted oligarchy tributary to a bureaucratic, hyper-centralised, clumsy Mafia.
The international terrorism and the conflicts which marred the South East Europe, the Middle East, the North Africa, Georgia, South Osetia, always telltales about the struggle of some nations for the democratic values and further transition to a new political and economical system meant to represent an alternative not just purely geopolitical and ideological but also securing the wealth of the applicant societies and an institutional, decentralised and corruption-free to warrant fair chances for everyone and to guarantee and free access to education, information and resources, providing a competitive and transparent milieu.
The transformation of the world into political – military and ideological blocks is no longer a solution for long time now, as it is a utopia oriented against the progress.
The world security cannot be accomplished just under the conditions provideed in the Article 5 of the North Atlantic Alliance, the solidarity of the entire international community being put to test, which should not fall in the trap of some geopolitical games leading the world back to an age of belligerence, and a re-division of the globe in spheres of influence. The economical, innovative, technical – scientific and spiritual discoveries of the Occident are way much too important and made with sacrifices, to be subdued in a battle of a purely ideological and reactionary type.
There are signals telling Russia is willing to build and Eurasian Empire comprising Hungary, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, Slovakia and other possible countries. Greece is lured to an obscure sphere of influence, due to its economical status. These scenarios are dangerous, yet Russia’s target certainly is, of course, to discourage Europe (EU) which should not fall into the adversary’s logic trap, be it an ideological adversary only, manifested in the first stage of the forefront and propaganda as we were able to see just at the level of some North Korean leaders.
Comments Off on The New Asymmetric Threats to the Global Security
Politics and the security awareness culture today
January 27th, 2015
By Silviu Craescu.
This concept employs a new institutional approach on promotion of dialogue with public institutions – actors, and also the validation of their social mission in the spirit of knowledgeable about the new generation of threats, risks and vulnerabilities, at the level of the individual, group, as society, national, regional and global.
[The Security Awareness Culture represents a modern institutional angle promoting the security related topics; knowing the public emergencies list where political, military, economic, societal and ecologic sides are concerned; the entire spectrum of notions, ideas and information available, at some point, to the state’s citizens, concerning the security awareness national values, interests and necessities; practice of developing some attitudes, motivations and behaviours required to personal, group and state defense and protection, against vulnerabilities, risk factors, threats, dangerous situations or potential aggression, and also their promotion in the domestic and international security circles – A modern dictionary of public security].
The fight back against terrorism, organized crime, across-the-border criminality are realities which the civil society representatives should know, for further joining efforts with the state’s own institutions, for know, prevent and proactively deal with these issues. And when the challenge is in the security class, then it should rather concern all of us to the same degree.
The current geopolitical context has turned the strategic interest space where Romania is located into an actual source, transit zone and final destination of a some quite serious highly organized criminal activity namely: illegal smuggling of guns, ammunition and explosives; drug smuggling; illegal migration and human beings trafficking; counterfeit products merchandize ; money laundry activities etc.
The newly hatched democracies in this area, however keep face several negative phenomena which damage the qualityof the governing act. In this context, the inefficient governing – as outcome of the democratic deficit and institutional corruption, with effects in political clientelism manifestations, a shabby public administration, authoritarian push trends and an endemic lack of public transparency and responsibility – all these submine the citizens’ confidence in the public institutions and may build as a major threat for the state’s security. In Romania, the inefficient governing represents a potential risk against development and implicitly the long term national security.
The corruption also represents a menace against the national security, yet on short term, however , having a negative impact on living standard, human rights and fundamental liberties, but also of a healthy economic build up.
The new asymmetric threat, the economic and informational globalisation, the global issues, a winding up of the states interdependence, at all levels and fields, the global anomy, represent insecurity hotspots menacing everyone.
That is why the security awareness education and culture, the crises management, fighting back the disinformation, represent prerequisites of a new collective defense, but which is no longer handled by state, as a political -administrative entity, but by citizens themselves via the civil society instead, so that to make a resources decentralisation, of information and responsibilities, prerequisites for prevention and management of the security crisis situations.
Security today ,is a modern concept, which in an open society of democratic type represents and systemic reality, encompassing also the economic, social, cybernetic, foods security, the safeguarding of the citizens ‘ rights and liberties etc.
This is exactly why it is necessary the citizens should be granted free access to information, to be aware of the need for security, since the security awareness culture is not just the property of some group of interests, of some bureaucratic entity, of closed circuit type, as used to happen in the autocratic and non democratic political systems period.
A modern state seeks to identify new security solutions, to make a modern legislation of European vintage in this field, and to provide the due sourcing for the growing of the national security system. The most important sources which be organised and properly exploited are the information and the human sources.
In the absence of a robust development and a satisfactory IGR, which represents the internal sufficiency status of a nation, allowing it to become a competitive factor at international scale, we’re more security consumers rather than security providers.
The role of the civil society is to proactively involve in preventive and management tasks of the new security reality as an indicator of a new vocation of a cross-breed Euro-Atlantic and communitary –European vintage. The aim in cross-hairs is stability, peace and the building up of a modern society, democratic and connected to the Euro-Atlantic values.
Comments Off on Politics and the security awareness culture today
NATO summit for new geopolitical security challenges
January 10th, 2015
By Silviu Craescu.
The heads of state and governments who attended the NATO Council Summit held in Wales on September 4 and 5, 2014 reached a mutual understanding concerning the next NATO moves.
It was acknowledged the fact that this meeting is taking place at a most critical time for the Euro-Atlantic security.
The new security threats, the Ukrainian crisis, the crisis management, the instability situation in steady growing up across the Middle East and North Africa, were the main topics under debates, were considered the hard core of the Summit’s Final Statement.
Endorsement of Ukraine was henceforth jointly declared as a both military – strategic objective and as an axiological bulwark mainstay to defend the fundamental values, of the democracy, human rights, individual freedom and the ruling of law. In this respect the Alliance stand point was re-confirmed on the strategic concept of collective defense and co-operational security.
One of the NATO targets is to secure the Alliance cohesion, developing the partnership with the strategic Allies. The top priority is the NATO reinforcement as set out at the Summit which means to develop the long term operative reaction capabilities development in the context of the latest breaking geopolitical mutations and asymmetrical threats. In this respect were adopted a series of strategic measures included in the NATO Readiness Action Plan. This is meant to bolster a rapid reaction, inter-operational capabilities and the counterstrike operations against changes and security threats in present and in future, potential or actual.
The topic which the NATO Summit focused on most was Russian aggression against Ukraine incurring geopolitical and security tangles, and in the NATO Council view regarded as developing long term consequences on security and peace in Europe, but on the entire world stability as well.
The Great Britain prime minister, Mr David Cameron, recalled the NATO Summit in 1990 held in the great Britain as well, in order to invoke the privileged partnership with the US and highlighted the importance of NATO cohesion to the joint effort of building up a safe world of peace and prosperity. Mr Cameron also stated that in an age of major technological developments and globalization thrive huge benefits and opportunities, but also the higher risk that enormous capabilities to become the possession of terrorist groups.
Mr David Cameron further warned on the latest breaking global scale security threats, represented specifically by the ascent of the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant.
The NATO convened to re-assert once more the determination, perseverance and hold-together unity in agreement with the Washington Treaty Act, which constitutes the very foundation act and legal basis of the NATO making, reference being made to the final statement but also to other documents as well, such as the Article 5 in the Treaty which in the opinion of the heads of states and governments summoned in Wales represents the legal foundation of the collective system of defense and security, a defensive system in a class of its own at world scale, this being in the opinion of the the NATO Council a serious and major responsibility, which must be assumed.
The Article 5 in the NATO claims: ,, The Parties agree that a military attack against one or more of them either in Europe or in North America shall be construed as an attack against all Parties; therefore, these convene that, should such an attack occurs, each of these Parties, invoking the rights of legitimate self-defense, both individual and collective, acknowledged in the Article from the United Nations Chart, shall help the Party or Parties so attacked, immediately taking up, both individually and in mutual agreement with the other Parties, the measure deemed as necessary to be taken, including the use of armed force, for the purpose of re-establishing and secure the entire NATO coverage area.
Any armed attack of this kind and any measure taken as a follow-up shall be immediately notified to the Security Council. These measures shall come to an end only at the time when the Security Council shall take the necessary measures for re-establishing and maintain the international peace and security.” ( The NATO Treaty Act signed up at Washington on April 4, 1949).
In fact, the prime minister David Cameron considered the annexation of Crimea by Russia, as an illegal action and further invoked the relevance of collective defense, guaranteed in the Article 5, of defending and save-guarding the liberty of territories and populations by way of abiding to the principle of national sovereignty of the states, which is guaranteed by the United Nations Chart as well. This was the also the general consensus of the attendants who joined the NATO Summit Meeting held in Wales.
The top 5 priorities of the NATO Summit Meeting were:
1. The Ukraine Crisis and the NATO –Russia relationship.
2. The future of Afghanistan.
3. Approaching the new threats.
4. Reinforcement of the support for NATO Armed Forces.
5. Bolstering the strategic partnerships.
The NATO decided to considerably enlarge the military presence in East Europe. This strategic NATO relocation, has a rather very special geostrategic dimension and in a lesser degree it should be deemed as a purely political act.
In the context of the priorities and brand new ways of tackling the current security issues as sketched at the Summit there were established concrete measures and timelines for implementation:
· Enlarge the military presence in East Europe;
· New exercises custom-tailored for environment preservation;
· Relocation of equipment and logistics;
· The NATO Readiness Action Plan Engagement;
· Securing the NATO infrastructure and the necessary resources.
Naturally, these tasks are provided to be carried out in joint co-operation with the allies, being construed as a counter-measure to Ukrainian crisis, deemed as a threat on regional, Euro-Atlantic stability (security). The Alliance re-assured its Eastern members concerning the support and security preservation efforts, meaning to issue an operational kick-back to this crisis.
Another assumed decision, rated as a third in rank NATO Summit priority, and of the North Atlantic Council, respectively involves the strategic objective of the proper financing and replenish by the NATO member-states, of the budget allotted for Defense, each of its members having the duty to endow the army forces and provide a fast reaction capability at short notice, featured with an effective command and control system in place, but also endowed with a high performance communication system.
In this respect it has to be mentioned also that at the NATO Summit Meeting the decision was made to upgrade the support granted to Ukraine concerning a future development of communication facilities and of the command and control system, of the inter-operability.
Among the asymmetrical and new threats against state security, and especially where the Euro-Atlantic space is concerned, it was approached the cyber-terrorist threats issue.
Not so long time back, in 2009, the European Commission adopted the document ,, Protection of Europe against cybernetic attacks and major disruptions: enhancing the degree in training, safe-conduct and resilience”, adopting also ,,The Enhancement Plan for Informatics Critical Infrastructures”.
The measures taken at the EU level on upgrading the cyber security, were in fact updated this year, so that we may talk here about some institutional convergence, a specific inter-dependent and synergic co-operation at the NATO – EU level.
A rather complex problem is the NATO reform.
The NATO reform remains still an open to debate topic, even if it either was not analysed actually in extenso during the NATO Summit Meeting, or the media coverage was fuzzy or scarce if any.
It ought to be said, however related to some scepticism, that neither NATO is bound to disintegrate nor the Alliance shall last just for a moment’s necessity purpose. On the occasion of the NATO Summit, it was highlighted the fact that no today-for-tommorow-only decisions shall be made and that the NATO is non some remote, high and recluse club minding a bunch of limited interests. On the contrary, future milestones were set also related to the global security.
We anticipate that the NATO globalization just echoes to the entire society globalization in a deeper sense at all the levels of its intricate levels, structures and components.
The NATO aims to achieve and put the basis of the complex future of the security coverage at the world scale, designing right from these days a brand new military paradigm, conceived as a paradigm of the world security, endowed with a strong protectionist-proactive oriented and offensive-potential dimension.
Comments Off on NATO summit for new geopolitical security challenges