Podcasts about nato review

In an article previously published on NATO Review, I explained that the nature of modern warfare is changing at a rapid pace. Consequently, wars are no longer merely about kinetic operations. This means that it is not just physical warfare, but also non-military strategies and tactics that define modern-day conflicts and wars.

'War in Europe: how threatened are Russia's neighbours?' With full-scale war in Europe now into its third year, the continent's security environment has been transformed since February 24, 2022. This is most obviously the case for the primary victim of Russia's aggression – Ukraine – but also for many of its near neighbours. In this edition of IIEA Insights, how the Russian threat is perceived is assessed by a Ukrainian living in Ireland since just after the invasion, an Irishman based in Helsinki and a Polish security expert in Warsaw. Eoin McNamara is a research fellow at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs specialising in transatlantic relations; NATO; and security in northern and eastern Europe. He has published in the NATO Review, the Revue Militaire Suisse, the Defence Forces Review and has commented on security, defence and international affairs in outlets such as BBC World, Euronews, the Times of London, the New York Times, El Pais and the Irish Times. Robert Pszczel is a senior fellow at the security and defence department of the Centre for Eastern Studies in Warsaw. A former diplomat with many years of service in the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, both in Warsaw and in Brussels, he was a member of the national team for accession talks with NATO in 1997. From 1999 (until his retirement in 2020) he served on NATO's International Staff in Brussels and as the director of the NATO Information Office in Moscow. Olena Tregub heads the secretariat of The Independent Defence Anti-Corruption Committee. The Committee, which is a joint initiative of Transparency International Defence and Security and Transparency International Ukraine, aims to reduce corruption and increase accountability in the Ukrainian defence sector. She has previously worked for Ukraine's Ministry of Economic Development, at UN Headquarters in New York and as a lecturer in international relations.

Today, we have Nicholas Nelson, who recently joined MD One Ventures as Partner.Nicholas is an important and active player in building Europe's first defence and national security venture capital fund, supporting the growing portfolio of over a dozen defence and dual-use tech companies. Nicholas is an internationally recognised defence investor and thought leader, with over 17 years of experience across the national security and defence tech sectors. His National Security career has spanned roles in the US Government, management consulting, and leading defence and dual-use tech companies.Nicholas was an early investor in defence tech as we know it today, having made his first investment in 2020, and has been advising within the dual-use sector since 2015. He has become a leading advocate for the nascent European national security technology ecosystem- contributing to multiple publications and communities, including the US Army War College, the NATO Review, National Defence Magazine, Munich Security Conference, Defence Disrupted, College of Europe, University of Cambridge, and Kings College London.We invite you to listen to this discussion below for a refreshingly honest talk on the defence tech sector, where we stand vis a vis the US and China, as well as actionable advice on how the ecosystem can change for the better.Go to eu.vc for our core learnings and the full video interview

The dismal performance of Russia's conventional forces in the early days of the war in Ukraine risks convincing some in NATO that the future Russian threat to the Alliance can be deterred primarily via NATO's conventional superiority, and that enhancing deterrence of Russian nuclear use in a future conflict is therefore no longer a high priority. This is a dangerous fallacy. It fails to take into account the relevant lessons learned from Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and the fundamental change in the future security environment in which NATO will have to deter or defeat Russian aggression and escalation.

The last article that we are republishing as part of 70 Years of NATO Review was written by consistent and long-time NATO Review author, Michael Rühle, in April 2015. While that might not seem like very long ago, this piece is evidence of just how much has changed in the last eight-or-so years. In the 2000s and early 2010s, deterrence had become a dormant concept, all but cast aside at the end of the Cold War to make space for countering new challenges and enlarging the Alliance. In 2014, following Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, deterrence was pulled out and dusted off to take centre stage as one of NATO's traditional core tasks and the backbone to Article 5. Russian aggression in Ukraine highlighted the necessity of ensuring that NATO's deterrence and defence posture was and would remain credible and effective.

In 2022, we celebrate 70 years of NATO Review (formerly NATO Letter). Over the past seven decades, NATO Review has been offering expert opinion and analysis on a wide range of Euro-Atlantic security issues in articles that have sometimes been reflective, sometimes predictive, but always at the front line of debate. To commemorate this long legacy, over the course of 2022 we will be re-publishing a selection of NATO Review articles from throughout the history of the magazine. This article, written in 1976 by then-Secretary General Joseph Luns, may evoke the old adage that the more things change, the more they stay the same. The 1970s saw a period of détente, or the easing of tensions, between the “West” (NATO) and the “East” (the Warsaw Pact, led by the Soviet Union). Despite warming relations and plenty of good-faith diplomacy, there were still concerns that the Soviet Union would continue its attempts to expand its sphere of influence through unpredictable actions, ideological conflict and even open hostility. NATO Allies maintained a collective hope of ending enmity and finding common ground with Russia. But they also recognised that stability and security come from strength, and stood firmly behind their prime responsibility: to ensure collective defence for each other, including by deterring aggression from a belligerent neighbour. In 1976, the strategic conflict was between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. However, since the end of the Cold War, eleven countries of the former communist bloc have joined NATO. These Allies exercised their sovereign right to choose their own path and shape their own future – a right which must be respected. NATO's Open Door policy has helped spread freedom, democracy and prosperity across Europe. It has never been directed against Russia or any other country. The door continues to remain open to any European country in a position to undertake the commitments and obligations of membership, and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area.

Ups and downs in NATO's fortunes are nothing new, and predictions of NATO's demise are almost as old as the Alliance itself. What is remarkable is not the Alliance's decline but its longevity. NATO has outlasted the Warsaw Pact by some three decades. Other Cold War alliances – the South East Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) and the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) - passed into history in the late 1970s. All of which begs the question: why has NATO persisted when other alliances have fallen by the wayside? There is already some excellent scholarship that addresses this issue. As NATO approaches another milestone – the adoption of its fourth post-Cold War Strategic Concept – it is worth examining the question once more.

In 2022, we celebrate 70 years of NATO Review (formerly NATO Letter). Over these many years, NATO Review has been offering expert opinion and analysis on a wide range of Euro-Atlantic security issues in articles that have sometimes been reflective, sometimes predictive, but always at the front line of debate. To commemorate this long legacy, over the course of 2022 we will be re-publishing a selection of NATO Review articles from throughout the history of the magazine. Looking back on 70 years of discussion and analysis in NATO Review gives us the opportunity to reflect on how our political and military Alliance has evolved across the decades. It also highlights the rock-solid foundation of NATO that hasn't changed: the unity of the Alliance despite our differences; the transatlantic bond at the heart of the Organization; and our solemn vow to defend each other against any threat. The following article, That Council of Yours, was written by André de Staercke, a former Belgian politician and permanent representative to NATO, for the 20th anniversary of the Alliance in April 1969. It reflects upon NATO's early years and the appointments of its initial Secretaries General, each of whom brought something unique to the Alliance. This is particularly poignant as we approach another NATO birthday and the nomination of a new Secretary General later this year. The article reflects on a young Alliance. In NATO's early years, the military and political headquarters were located in Paris. There were only 12 Allies and the Organization was finding its feet. But despite the many decades that have passed, there are some striking parallels with the present day: the security of the Euro-Atlantic area hangs in the balance, and the Alliance continues to combine robust military strength and coordination with frank political consultation among Allies. Most importantly, NATO continues to adapt to meet the challenges of the moment and guarantee the security of the Allies that make up This Council of Ours.

The recent UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) raised the stakes for global climate action, recognising the urgency of acting today to decarbonise global energy systems. Even so, there have been competing claims about its success, and thousands of youth activists, who gathered in the streets of Glasgow, criticised world leaders and businesses for still failing to recognise the urgency of the climate crisis – the most critical matter of our time. In the fight against climate change, everyone has a part to play. How is NATO, as a security organisation, contributing to international climate efforts and what more can the Alliance do?

In Episode 1 of Series 7 of The Rights Track, Todd is in conversation with Ben Lucas, Managing Director of the University of Nottingham's Data-Driven Discovery Initiative (3DI).  Together they discuss the threat to human rights posed by aspects of a digital world and the opportunities it can create for positive change.  Transcript Todd Landman  0:00  Welcome to The Rights Track podcast which gets the hard facts about the human rights challenges facing us today. In series seven, we're discussing human rights in a digital world. I'm Todd Landman, in our first episode of the series, I'm delighted to be joined by Ben Lucas. Ben is Managing Director of 3DI at the University of Nottingham. A hub for world class data science research, and a funder for this series of The Rights Track. To kick off the series, we're talking about some of the challenges and opportunities created in a data driven society, and particularly what all that means for our human rights. So welcome on this episode of The Rights Track. Ben Lucas  0:37 Thank you so much for having me.  Todd Landman  0:38  It's great to have you here, Ben. And I guess I want to start with just to kind of broad open question. We've been living with the internet for a number of years now. When I first came to United Kingdom, we barely had the internet and suddenly the web exploded, and it is a wonderful thing. It's transformed our lives in so many different ways. But it's also created major challenges for human rights, law and practice around the world. So my first question really is, what are the key concerns? Ben Lucas  1:04 I think that the internet is perhaps not bad in and of itself, and in that regard, it's very similar to any other new and emerging technology. We look at something like the automobile there's obviously dangers that having cars on roads introduced into society, but there's also a lot of good as far as a boost in quality of life and economic productivity and so forth. I think the central challenge and one that's perhaps getting exponentially more challenging is the fact that often more now than ever, digital technologies are moving a lot faster than what the regulatory environment can keep up with. And also very importantly, humankind's ability to fully understand the potential consequences of misuse or what happens when things go wrong. Todd Landman  1:50  So in some ways, it is interesting, you could look at Moore's Law for example, technology increases exponentially and this point you're making about the inability for the regulatory environment to keep up with that. I think that's a crucial insight you've given us because human rights in a way is a regulatory environment. We have international standards; we have domestic standards. Ben Lucas  2:08  Correct. Todd Landman  2:09  We have de jure protection of rights, de facto enjoyment of rights, but oftentimes, there's a great tension or gap between those two things. And when new issues emerge, we either need a new standard, or we need a new interpretation of those standards to be able to apply to that new thing. So, we're going to call the Internet a new thing for now and it actually, this dual use of technology is also interesting to me. When barbed wire was invented it's a great thing because you can suddenly close off bits of land and keep animals in one place. And it's wonderful for agriculture, but it's also a way to control property. And as we know, the enclosure laws in this country led to quite a lot of political conflict. But if we get back to the questions then about, you know, positive and negative aspects of the Internet, what else can you share with us? Ben Lucas  2:50 There are examples such as work that colleagues in the Rights Lab are doing, for example, on the use of the Internet and in particular social media, for exploitation. So, child exploitation, for example. There's also terrible examples of migrant exploitation. People who join groups thinking it's going to be a community to help them to get a job in another place. And that turns out to be quite dodgy, so that there's examples that are just blatantly you know, bad and terrible and terrible things that happen on the internet. But then there are other examples that are, I think, much more complicated, especially around the transmission of information and new emergent keywords we're seeing around misinformation and disinformation. The power that user generated content can have to help mobilise activists and protests for good for example, to get information out when journalists can't get in. Then the flip side of that is the potential exploitation by nefarious actors who are obviously spreading information that potentially damages democracies and otherwise stable and important institutions around the world. The other thing I would sort of cite here would be work by our colleague, Austin Choi-Fitzpatrick with his book, The Good Drone. That's a really interesting contrast here. So, a book about the use of UAVs and where on the one hand, if we think about a UAV that's armed. Todd Landman  4:12  That's an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle for our listeners. Ben Lucas  4:14 Yeah, Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. And if we think about one of those drones that's armed and also potentially autonomous moving forward to some that's potentially you know, very, very scary. On the other hand, this same basic sort of technology platform could provide cheap and accessible technology to help mobilise social movements to help journalists for example. And so I think any debate around the good and bad of technology, that there's some really interesting and very complicated contrast involved. Todd Landman  4:43   And you know, you see drones being used for beautiful visual displays over you know, presidential inaugurations, for example. Ben Lucas  4:48 Exactly. Todd Landman  4:49  You see this big, colourful display, but that same swarm technology of UAVs can actually be used for combat for warfare, etc. And we know from the work on human rights, modern slavery and human trafficking that, you know, taking pictures of the Earth using satellites with swarms of satellites is very good, but then that can also be used for for ill as well and I think that challenge of the dual use of technology will always be with us. I wonder now if we could just turn to another set of questions, which is, is the difference between life online and life offline. Do we think that human rights rules are different for online and offline life or roughly the same? Ben Lucas  5:25  A lot of people argue that online is a mirror of offline, although there are those potentially really negative amplification effects involved in the bad stuff that happens in the real world so to speak, when you move it online because you can take something that's very small and suddenly make it very big. I think there's a degree of it really just being a mirror and potentially an amplifier for the offline. Again, I think the central problem when we talk about human rights and the general protection of users of the Internet, is again really this fact that the technology is just moving so fast. That regulation both it's you know, how it's developed, initiated, interpreted going forward, the tech just moves so much faster. And then I think what we're seeing now is really kind of a shock that internet users get after the fact but it's maybe the sort of Newton's third law effect. You know, tech moved so fast was so aggressive and so free in the way it kind of there was sort of a wild west of how we, you know, captured and used data. And now we're just sort of experiencing the backlash that you would expect. One other sort of complicated dimension here is that we really need regulation to protect users of the internet but of course, that's then balanced against examples we see around the world of the way the internet's regulated being used to oppress and suppress populations. There's a really important balance that we need to achieve there. We need to protect everybody online. We need to preserve freedom of access to information, freedom of speech. We don't want people to get hurt online, but we also don't want to do that in an oppressive way. Maybe one thing that's really different as far as human rights online and offline, will emerge in the future around artificial intelligence. The big question I think that researchers in artificial intelligence are dealing with be they folks who are working on the algorithmics or be they the colleagues in law who are working on the ethics and the legal side of it. The really big question is around sort of transparency and tractability what's actually happening in this magic algorithmic box? Can we make sure that people can have appropriate checks and balances on what these you know this this new class of machines is doing? Todd Landman  7:32  Well, it's interesting because there is this observation about people who, who who use AI and design those algorithms that the AI solution and the algorithm that's been designed reflects many of the biases of the coder in the first place. Ben Lucas  7:44 Exactly. Todd Landman  7:425 And who are these coders? Well, they come from a particular social demographic and therefore you're replicating their positionality through AI, yet AI is presented as this neutral machine that simply calculates things and gives you the best deals on whatever platform you might be shopping. Ben Lucas  7:58  Precisely. And a lot of these you know, if we think about machine learning in general, where we're training an algorithm, essentially a type of machine to do something it involves a training set that involves a training data set. Where is that coming from? Who's putting it together? Exactly what biases are present in that? And now, and this is probably one of the most pronounced differences when we think about sort of human rights offline and online. I think a really big issue going forward is going to be that of AI discrimination, basically, and we're seeing that in everything from financial services - you know a machine is making a decision about does somebody get a loan, does somebody get a good credit score, applications and facial recognition technology. Who are they trying to find? What are they trying to do with that tech? And this AI discrimination issue is going to be one of the, one of the key things about that online/offline contrast. Todd Landman  8:50  Yeah, you know running right through all of our human rights law discourses, one about you know no discrimination, right that there should not be discrimination by type of person. Ben Lucas  8:59  Correct. Todd Landman  9:00  And yet, we know in practice, there's law discrimination already. And in a way AI can only amplify or maybe accelerate some of that discrimination. So it's a good cautionary tale about you know, the, the, shall we say, the naive embrace of AI as a as a solution to our problems. I wonder if I might just move forward a little bit about the cross-border nature of the internet, one of the promises of the internet is that nation state boundaries disappear, that people can share information across space and time we've just lived through a pandemic, but we're able to talk to each other in meetings all around the world without having to get in any kind of form of transport. But what sort of things should we thinking about in terms of the cross-border nature of the internet? Ben Lucas  9:38  I think that I would encourage all listeners today to go back to Alain de Botton's book, The News; a User's Manual, and also some of the talks he gave around that period, I think around 2014. We can have a totally new interpretation of some of those very relevant ideas, where we are now in the present and I'm talking about what some people are calling the threat of the post truth era. We've seen a completely unprecedented explosion in the information that we have access to the ability to suddenly take somebody's very small idea, good or bad, and project to a massive audience. But with that comes, you know, the vulnerabilities around misinformation and disinformation campaigns and the threat that that leads to, you know, potentially threatening democracies threatening, you know, various populations around the world. And another important branch of work that we're doing is studying campaigns and user generated content, and actually studying what's being said, at scale within these large audiences. We've done quite some work, Todd and I are with the Rights Lab for example, looking at analysing campaigns on Twitter. And this really comes down to trying to get into, exactly as you would study any other marketing campaign, looking at how do you cut through clutter? How do you achieve salience? But then also through to more practical functional matters of campaigns such as you know, driving guaranteed region awareness, policy influence donations, but we're just doing that at a much larger scale, which is facilitated, obviously, by the fact that we have access to social media data. Todd Landman  11:16  It's unmediated supply of information that connects the person who generates the content to the person who consumes it. Ben Lucas  11:23  Yeah. Todd Landman  11:24  Earlier you were talking about the media you're talking about academia and others, you know, there's always some sort of accountability peer review element to that before something goes into the public domain. Whereas here you're talking about a massive democratisation of technology, a massive democratisation of content generation, but actually a collapse in the mediated form of that so that anybody can say anything, and if it gains traction, and in many ways, if it's repeated enough, and enough enough people believe it's actually true. And of course, we've seen that during the pandemic, but we see it across many other elements of politics, society, economy, etc, and culture. And yet, you know, there we are in this emerging post truth era, not really sure what to do about that. We see the proliferation of media organisations, the collapse of some more traditional media organisations, like broadsheet newspapers and others have had to change the way they do things and catch up. But that peer review element, that kind of sense check on the content that's being developed is gone in a way. Ben Lucas  12:18  Yep and it's potentially very scary because there's no editor in chief for, you know, someone's social media posts. On top of that, they probably have or could potentially have a far greater reach than a traditional media outlet. And I think the other thing is, I mean, we were kind of for warned on many of these issues. The NATO Review published quite some interesting work on Disinformation and Propaganda in the context of hybrid warfare, I think around sort of starting in 2016, or ramping up in 2016, which is, you know, also very fascinating read. And then the flip side again of this connectivity that we have now, I guess the good side, you know, is when user generated content is used in a good way. And again, that's examples like, you know, examples we've seen around the world with the mobilisation of protests for good causes or fighting for democracy, grassroots activism, and in particular, that ability to get information out when journalists can't get in. Todd Landman  13:15  You know it's interesting we did a study years ago, colleagues and I, on the the mobilisation against the Ben Ali regime in Tunisia, and we were particularly interested in the role of social media and Facebook platform for doing that. And it turned out that a. there was a diaspora living outside the country interested in the developments within the country but within the country, those who were more socially active on these platforms more likely to turn up to an event precisely because they could work out how many other people were going to go so it solves that collective action problem of you know, my personal risk and cost associated protesting is suddenly reduced because I know 100 other people are going to go. And you know, we did a systematic study of the motivations and mobilisation of those folks, you know, try, trying to oust the Ben Ali regime, but it gets to the heart of what you're saying that this this you know, user generated content can have a tech for good or a social good element to it. Ben Lucas  14:08  Exactly. And I think another important note here, that's maybe some sort of upside is that, you know, there are a lot of academics in a lot of different fields working on understanding this massive proliferation of connectivity as well. In a kind of, I guess, strange silver lining to many of the new problems that this technology may or may not have caused is that it's also given rise to the emergence of new fields like so we're talking about Infodemiology, now we've got some amazing studies happening on the subjects of echo chambers and confirmation bias and these types of type of themes and I think it's really given rise to some really interesting science and research and I have some some confidence that we've got, even if we don't have those, again, editors in chief on social media, I have confidence because we certainly have some, you know, wonderful scientists coming at this scenario from a lot of different angles, which I think also helps to sort of moderate and bring some of the downsides to the public attention. Todd Landman  15:04  Yeah, and let me jump to research now, because I'm really interested in the type of research that people are doing in 3DI here at the university. Can you just tell us a little bit about some of the projects and how they're utilising this new infodemiology as you call it, or new grasp and harnessing of these technologies? Ben Lucas  15:23  Yeah, so 3DI as the data driven discovery initiative, we're basically interested in all things applied data science. We have, I think, quite a broad and really wonderful portfolio of activity that we represent here at the University of Nottingham, in our Faculty of Social Science. Faculty of Social Sciences. This is everything from economics, to law, to business, to geography, and everything in between. We take a very broad exploratory approach to the kinds of questions that we're interested in solving, I would say. But we do tend to focus a lot on what we call local competitive advantage. So we're very interested in the region that we operate - Nottinghamshire - sectors and industry clusters where they have questions that can be answered via data science. Todd Landman  16:08  What sort of questions? What sort of things are they interested in? Ben Lucas  16:11  This is everything from the development of new financial services to really driving world class, new practice in digital marketing, developing and sort of advancing professions like law, where there is a very big appetite to bring in new sort of tech and data driven solutions into that space but a need to achieve those new sort of fusions and synergies. So that, that side is obviously very, you know, commercially focused, but very importantly, a big part of our portfolio is SDG focus. So Sustainable Development Goal focused, and we've got, I think, some really fascinating examples in that space. My colleagues in our N-Lab, which is a new demographic laboratory, based in the business school, are working on food poverty, for example. And they're doing this in what I think is really exciting way. They've teamed up with a food sharing app. So, this is very much driven by the start-up world. It's very much a marketplace offering. The platform is set up to combat, hopefully both hunger, but also food waste. So, we're talking SDG 2, and we're talking SDG 12, sustainable production and consumption. And they've then been able to expand this work not just from understanding the platform - how it works, not just helping the platform, how it can work and function better. But they've been able to take that data from the private sector and apply it to questions in the public sector. So, they are doing a lot of wonderful work. Todd Landman  17:37  So, people have a bit of surplus food, and they go on to the app and they say I've got an extra six eggs, and someone else goes on the app and says I need six eggs and then there's some sort of exchange, almost like an eBay for food. Ben Lucas  17:47  Exactly. Todd Landman  17:48  But as you say, people who are hungry get access to food for much less than going to the shop and buying it and. Ben Lucas  17:55  Or free. Todd Landman  17:56  And people with the extra six eggs don't chuck them out at the end of the week. They've actually given them to somebody right? Ben Lucas 18:01  Exactly. Todd Landman 18:02  And then from that you generate really interesting data that can be geo-located and filled into Maps, because then you can work out where the areas of deprivation then where people have, say, a higher probability of seeking less expensive food. Ben Lucas  18:15  Precisely. Yeah. And I think that's also a good segue into you know, so one of the other flagship projects we have is 3DI, which is tracktheeconomy.ac.uk where we've been looking at, again, taking data from the private sector, but also government data and looking at how economic deprivation might have been exacerbated or not or how it changed. In particular focused on COVID and what sort of shocks that brought about, but with the intention of taking that forward. And the biggest sort of revelations that we've had working on that project have been really around the need for better geographical granularity. The fact that a lot of our national statistics or you know, marketing research assessments that are made by companies are based on you know, bigger geographical chunks. Actually, if we can get more granular and get into some of that heterogeneity that might exist at smaller geographical levels, you know, that's that's really, really important. That really, really changes a lot of policy formulation, sort of scenarios and questions that policy makers have.  Todd Landman  19:19 One of the big problems when when you aggregate stuff, you lose that specificity and precisely the areas that are in most need. So I wonder in this research that your your colleagues been doing and that you've been doing, you know, what's the end game? What are we working towards here? And how is that going to help us in terms of it from a human rights perspective? Ben Lucas  19:41  I think speaking from a personal perspective, when I was a student when I was first taught economics, I was taught in a way that really highlighted that this is you know, economics was was just something that everyone as a citizen should know even if you don't want to become an economist or an econometrician, you need to know it as a citizen. The same now very much applies when we talk about technologies that might not be familiar to all folks like AI data science. I think there's a lot to be said, as far as what I would say is a big sort of mission for 3DI is to really boost the accessibility of technical skills to really benefit people in terms of prosperity, but also just in terms of understanding as citizens what's actually going on. You know, if machines are going to be making decisions for us in the future, that we have a right to understand how those decisions are made. Also, if we think about other challenges, in the sort of AI and automation space around, you know, potentially people losing jobs because it's become automated. I think we have a right to know how and why that is. I think another big sort of an extension of that point is really in learning and getting technical skills out there to people for you know, potentially benefiting prosperity and the labour market. We really need to keep that very tightly paired with critical thinking skills. You know, we're very good as academics, thinking about things and breaking them down and analysing them especially you know, we as social scientists, you know, coding is probably going to be language of the future to borrow your quote Todd, but who's going to use that coding and what for? So I think we need to keep people in a good mindset and be using this this this technology and this power for good. And then the last point would be as something that's been done very well on this podcast in the past, is getting people to think both researchers and again, definitely citizens to think about the inextricably intertwined nature of the Sustainable Development Goals. You know, so for us at 3DI we're looking for those problems at scale, where we have measurements at scale, where we can do data science and crack big challenges, but I think whether you're doing you know, much more focused work or work with the SDGs at scale, it's all really interconnected. An obvious example, what is climate change going to do for you know, potentially displacing populations and the flow on, the horrible flow on effects that's going to have? So I really, I think that's yes, sort of our our mission, I would say, moving forward. Todd Landman  22:07  That's fantastic. So you've covered a lot of ground, Ben, it's been fascinating discussion, you know, from the dual use of technology and this age old question of the good and the bad of any kind of new technological advance. You've covered all things around the, you know, the mobilizational potential problems with post truth era. The expanse and proliferation of multiple sources of information in a sense in the absence of of that mediated or peer reviewed element. And this amazing gap between the speed of technology and the slowness of our regulatory frameworks, all of which have running right through them major challenges for the human rights community. So we're really excited about this series because we're going to be talking to a lot of people around precisely the issues you set out for us and many more. In the coming months we've got Martin Sheinin who is a great human rights expert, former UN Special Rapporteur, but now a global, British Academy global professor at the Bonavero Institute at the University of Oxford working on precisely these challenges for human rights law, and this new digital world. And that's going to be followed by a podcast with Diane Coyle, who's the Bennett Professor of Economics, University of Cambridge. It's interesting because she wrote a book in 1997 called The Weightless World, which is about this emerging digital transformation coming to the economy, and has now written a new book called Cogs and Monsters. It's a great take on the modern study of economics and the role of digital transformation. But for now, I just want to thank you, Ben, for joining us. It's exciting to hear about the work of 3DI. We appreciate the support of 3DI for this series of The Rights Track. We look forward to the guests and I think by the end of the series we would like to have you back on for some reflections about what we've learned over this series of the Rights Track. Ben Lucas  23:50  Happy to. Thank-you for having me. Christine Garrington  23:53  Thanks for listening to this episode of The Rights Track, which was presented by Todd Landman and produced by Chris Garrington of Research Podcasts with funding from 3DI. You can find detailed show notes on the website at www.RightsTrack.org. And don't forget to subscribe wherever you listen to your podcasts to access future and earlier episodes.      

Alec serves as an advisor to investors, corporations and government leaders to help them understand the implication of factors emerging at the intersection of geopolitics, markets and increasingly disruptive network technologies and is on the board of directors (or advisors) for companies in the fields of technology, media, telecommunications, education, health care and cybersecurity.He recently served for four years as Senior Advisor for Innovation to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and acted as the diplomatic lead on issues including cybersecurity, Internet Freedom, disaster response and the use of network technologies in conflict zones. Previously, Alec served as the Convener for the Technology, Media and Telecommunications Policy Committee on Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and served on the Obama-Biden Presidential Transition Team.In 2000, he and three colleagues co-founded the technology-focused nonprofit organization One Economy and grew it from modest origins in a basement into a global organization serving millions of low-income people, with programs on four continents.His many awards include: Top 100 Global Thinkers by Foreign Policy Magazine, U.S. Department of State Distinguished Honor Award, Oxford University Internet and Society Award, Huffington Post’s 10 Game Changers in Politics and Tribeca Film Festival Disruptive Innovation Award. Alec has served as a guest lecturer at numerous institutions including the United Nations, Oxford University, Harvard Law School, Stanford Business School and a number of parliamentary bodies and his writing has appeared in academic publications including the Johns Hopkins SAIS Review of International Affairs and the NATO Review.You can listen right here on iTunesIn our wide-ranging conversation, we cover many things, including:* The reason Obama was such a special, charismatic leader and what other leaders can learn from him* Why Alec left a successful entrepreneurial career to help Obama on his first campaign* The possibly existential problem with social media* How politics changes post-Trump and where we are headed* Why Alec isn't that worried about tech monopolies* How the US government thinks about and promotes innovation, here and abroad* Which industries Alec believes become $1T markets* Why biotech and human enhancement are inevitable* The big difference between CEOs and politicians* Why health, genomics and personalized medicine as passions of Alec* The reason the US trumps China in long term innovation and growth* Why Hiliary's loss felt inevitable, and drawn outMake a Tax-Deductible Donation to Support FringeFMFringeFM is supported by the generosity of its readers and listeners. If you find our work valuable, please consider supporting us on Patreon, via Paypal or with DonorBox powered by Stripe.Donate

This video looks at how medical advances that began 100 years ago are still used today, by both military and civilian hospitals. It asks medical, military and history experts whether dealing with today’s combat injuries– such as IED strikes and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) – were influenced by treatment of injuries such as shellshock 100 years ago. It also highlights how technology is now on the frontline of medical treatment but asks: is today’s problem that there aren’t enough medical personnel to operate the technology? As the 100th anniversary of World War I approaches, NATO Review magazine asks: if any good came out of the carnage of the ‘Great War’, was it advances in medicine?

NATO Review outlines that the war in Ukraine covers just 7% of the territory of the country, while other areas of real concern, such as hybrid attacks and a corruption-afflicted economy, affect the whole country.

NATO Review outlines that the war in Ukraine covers just 7% of the territory of the country, while other areas of real concern, such as hybrid attacks and a corruption-afflicted economy, affect the whole country.

NATO Review looks inside the KGB prison where Latvians were locked up, tortured or killed. We hear how today's leading Latvians were affected by Soviet occupation. And we ask if they see echoes in today's Russian aggression.

What do the changes to the energy landscape following the Ukraine crisis mean for NATO? How does the organization need to change to better face energy challenges? We ask some top commentators and politicians what kind of changes they feel should be made. 00.11 – Voice-over – Paul King – Editor, NATO Review In a globalized world no man is an island. Some 50 per cent of the EU’s gas imports from Russia still pass through Ukraine and these imports have already been interrupted twice before, in 2006 and 2009. Following the Ukraine crisis, there are fears that Europe’s energy security may be vulnerable once again. 00.32- Liam Fox – Former UK Secretary of Defence In globalization, our interdependence means that we cannot be isolated from instability in any one part of the world. Ukraine is a very obvious example of that now, but we had that with 9/11, we had it with things like the SARS outbreak. We’re a much more interdependent world. 00.51 – Voice-over – Paul King – Editor, NATO Review But energy movements are decided largely by private companies in commercial deals, at least in the West. So what role can an international organisation like NATO play? 01.01 – Amb. Kurt Volker – Former US ambassador to NATO Energy security is not something that NATO would sell or control. It is again, national decisions, economic decisions, infrastructure decisions, European Union level decisions… But it can be a forum for consultation, for places where countries such as the Baltic States can raise concerns with other allies, and that we can talk about the implications of the dependencies that exist and the need for addressing them and also how we can share pain. 01.28 – Marc Jacobson – Adjunct Professor, The George Washington University, US I think there is also a real case to be made that NATO needs to recast the role it originally envisaged in 1949. By this I mean inclusion of other ministries during North Atlantic Council sessions, for example Ministers of Finance. And this is representative of the more holistic challenges the world faces today. 01.49 – Voice-over – Paul King – Editor, NATO Review This adaptation will require a new skill set. But this is not the first time NATO has had to adapt to changing security challenges. 01.58 – Linas Linkevičius – Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lithuania If we have no experts, we should have some experts. It’s no excuse. I remember when I spent my time in NATO, it was very interesting. We found out that nobody speaks Arabic within NATO. Now that’s no longer the case, but now suddenly, why? Because never before it was needed, but now it is needed. 02.17 – Voice-over – Paul King – Editor, NATO Review And finally, there can be little doubt that energy can have a major impact on rebalancing relations with Russia. 02.24 - Marc Jacobson – Adjunct Professor, The George Washington University, US Energy security and economic stability limit Russian freedom of action more so than any sort of direct military to military balance. NATO Review www.nato.int/review The opinions expressed in NATO Review do not necessarily reflect those of NATO or its member countries. This video contains footage from ITN. While this video may be reproduced and used in its entirety, ITN footage cannot be used as part of a new production.

Football and the defence sector have a lot in common. For example, they both need a strong defense, potent attacks and a capable captain organizing everything. NATO Review tries to show how recent changes in the defense industry would look if they were played out on the football pitch. 00.04 – Paul King – Editor, NATO Review Hello, my name is Paul King and today I’m going to try and explain the changes in defense with the aid of a football. The ball represents everything the armed forces need in the field. This can be from top-end jets through to simple uniforms or advanced arms through to cleaning services. The list is nearly endless. And this is the goal, which is the security world. It can contain threats as large as the conflicts in Afghanistan or security challenges closer to home, like terrorism. The idea is always to find the quickest, most effective way of getting this into that. 00.41 – Paul King – Editor, NATO Review The way to get them there has been companies producing equipment and services, that’s the defense industry, working closely with those who are paying for them, that’s the governments. But there are always obstacles in the process. These can be long lead times, budget overruns and many unforeseen factors, but it’s up to the governments and the defense industry to find a way around them. 01.03 – Paul King – Editor, NATO Review Until now they worked pretty well together. Since 2001 there have been two major wars, several major terrorist attacks, an increase in piracy, the list goes on. This meant that companies could offer solutions that governments not only wanted, but desperately needed. That was the time to get more creative. The money was available. So you wanted something more advanced, you got it. But then around 2008 things started to change. President Obama came to power and vowed to end the Iraq war. More importantly, the economic crisis exploded. This meant not only that there were less demands coming from governments, it also meant they had less money. 01.40 – Paul King – Editor, NATO Review Now companies knew they had less opportunities and could expect less money. It was a new situation… and a more difficult one. Add to this rapidly changing security threats. Large-scale wars were over or coming to an end, cyber has been moving up the agenda. The goal posts have literally been moved. 02.04 – Paul King – Editor, NATO Review And finally, the obstacles have got bigger. Cyber for example is an area where the threat changes vary rapidly, where it’s more difficult to collaborate and where companies have to change the way they’ve been working for years. So, it’s a long time since the days of easy solutions and there’s only one thing that’s clear: that things are going to get tougher.

When a country is attacked by conventional land, sea or air forces, it is usually clear how to best respond. But what happens when it is attacked by a mixture of special forces, information campaigns and backdoor proxies? What's the best response? And how can international security organisations like NATO adapt to these attacks? 00.10 - Paul King – Editor, NATO Review – voice-over At one point during the Ukrainian crisis, Russia had 40,000 troops lined up on the Ukrainian border, but when it came to sowing instability in Ukraine, it was not these conventional forces who were used, but rather unorthodox and varied techniques, which have been dubbed hybrid warfare. 00.28 – Amb. Kurt Volker – Former US ambassador to NATO Russia is using it to try to play for unilateral, national advantage, taking territory, imposing its will on others, invading countries, annexing territory… It’s stuff you couldn’t make up. 00.41 – Marcin Zabarowski – Director of the Polish Institute of International Affairs I think the Russians have been very smart. Frankly, I think they have outsmarted us. They use commandoes and they pretend they are not Russian. In terms of information warfare, they have been extremely good, really. You know, we have here a debate in the West: Provocative, not provocative, presence here, presence there. And the Russians have their Russia Today, which responds to the orders from Putin, having one clear message, and it reverberates. It’s using Western technologies. Whereas the message itself is very, you know, kind of communist style, one would say. 01.20 – Liam Fox – Former UK Secretary of Defence This crisis goes well beyond the borders of Ukraine. What effectively Putin has now said, is that the defence of ethnic Russians does not lie in the countries in which they reside or with their laws or their government or their constitution, but with an external power, Russia. This blows a hole in everything we understood about international law. 01.42 - Paul King – voice-over But despite these techniques often being referred to as a new approach, there is evidence to indicate that it’s not new for Russia. 01.51 – Michael Chertoff – Former US Secretary of Homeland Security Go back to Estonia in 2007, go back to Georgia in 2008. I think the concept of using kind of a slow effort, a slow encroachment, has been part of the strategic landscape, certainly for Russia, for quite some time. And sometimes it involves more overt and obvious moves, sometimes it’s more subtle moves, it involves economic warfare, sometimes it may be cyber attacks, conducted under the cover of being activists at work. And it can be a combination of them and I think this has been a set of tactics that has been deployed to some degree or another, certainly for the last five or six years. 02.30 – Prof Julian Lindley-French – Director, Europa Analytica I mean, as a student of Russian history and particularly Russian military history, the use of such agents provocateurs through mainly military intelligence organs,… special forces, goes way back. Destabilising, decapitating administrations, creating the space for influence, let's call it that, that’s nothing new. So, we’ve just got to have the political courage to call it for what it is. There is still a profound split in Europe between those willing to say… confirm what it is they are seeing, and those who’d rather it all went away and will find almost any excuse for what Russia is doing. 03.17 - Paul King – voice-over So the question now is: how does an organisation like NATO respond to the use of these techniques and is it the most appropriate organisation to do so? 03.27 - Amb. Kurt Volker Russia is going to use special operations forces, intelligence forces, economic pressure, energy pressure, cyber attacks and potential conventional force directly to achieve imperial goals. And is NATO willing to use any of those tools to prevent that or not? That’s what we need to see. 03.47 – Karel Kovanda – Former Czech Ambassador to NATO I don’t think NATO has the tools for that. The European Union might have the tools, but if the European Union, shall we say the European Commission particularly, does have them, I still haven’t seen them being employed. 04.03 – Linas Linkevičius – Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lithuania My point is we should be flexible enough to take all these new threats, new challenges, like energy, like cyber, like media, like these strange green human beings… You know, and we should really do that on time, not after something happens. 04.20 - Paul King – voice-over Some recommend that the best way to counter this type of technique is to invite a stronger, not weaker response. 04.27 - Amb. Kurt Volker What creates de-escalation is a strong response that causes Russia to think twice about going any further, stabilises a tense situation and then allows it to de-escalate. This has all been still been very reactive, very slow… Indeed, many of the statements we’ve heard from NATO leaders, have been that ‘if Russia goes further, then we will take additional steps’. It ought to be the other way around. 04.53 - Paul King – voice-over And these techniques also pose the problem that without clear command and control of certain forces, it can be difficult for all sides to know how events will unfold. 05.04 – Rob De Wijk – Founder Hague Center for Strategic Studies The problem is that starting a crisis is easy, but ending it is extremely difficult. So, you know what you do when you start creating unrest at the Crimea and maybe at the eastern part of Ukraine. But then it gets a dynamic of its own and that is highly dangerous. And I’m fully confident that Putin simply doesn’t know the next steps as well. NATO Review www.nato.int/review The opinions expressed in NATO Review do not necessarily reflect those of NATO or its member countries. This video contains footage from ITN. While this video may be reproduced and used in its entirety, ITN footage cannot be used as part of a new production.

What were the main objectives of Russian leader President Putin when he embarked on his support for pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine? Did they go beyond territory and aim to create - or increase - divisions between Western countries? And if so, has this strategy worked? NATO Review asks some leading security figures how they saw it.

How much could we have seen the Crimea crisis coming? NATO Review talks to security experts and asks whether there were enough clues in Russia's previous adventures - especially in Estonia and Georgia - to indicate that Crimea would be next. 00.12 - Paul King – Editor, NATO Review – voice-over When Russia annexed Georgia’s regions of South-Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008 some western politicians warned that Russia wasn’t finished yet. 00.21 – Linas Linkevičius – Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lithuania We said it would be more at that time. No one listened. By the way, we mentioned Crimea. We mentioned Transnistria. So Crimea is gone. Transnistria maybe not, but who can exclude it? 00.34 – Alex Petriashvili – State Minister of Georgia on European and Euro-Atlantic Integration The Russians have learned lessons from 2008. Unfortunately, the Western countries less. 00.42 - Paul King – voice-over But many Western countries were anxious to keep the relationship with Russia stable 00.47 – Karel Kovanda – Former Czech Ambassador to NATO The reaction to the Georgian invasion, I think, was number 1: very weak, and number 2: rather surprising. 00.58 – Linas Linkevičius We told then, in 2008: Let’s be consistent. Let’s do what we decided. Let’s implement and let’s stick to this, you know, because we made very good statements at that time, very good demands, very clear. We can have a look. These documents are available. In meetings, communiqués… spending some time to draft. And in two months we’re back to business as normal. 01.20 - Paul King – voice-over Some feel the West’s reaction may have fostered more confidence in the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin. 01.28 – Karel Kovanda Calculations of a guy who has got his KGB history, who is a judo sportsman, in that sense makes use of the strength of the opponent by throwing him over, who has his history of dealing with the criminal gangs of Petersburg, and as somebody mentioned, a history of having been a hooligan in his youth. 01.50 – Konstantin von Eggert – Kommersant FM Radio, Editor in Chief Well, I think the general perception in Moscow was that the West is weak. I’m not trying to psychoanalyse Putin, but if we are talking about the general feeling in the political class, that’s pretty true. I actually would concur with that. You’re looking at the most un-Atlanticist, to put it mildly, American administration in decades. You are looking at a European Union, which is consumed by its own problems and which actually is not ready and not willing to engage in any kind of major, coordinated foreign policy action with players like Russia. So, it’s very conducive from the point of view of Mister Putin. 02.34 - Paul King – voice-over Regardless of the Russian leadership’s motivation, the Russian moves in Ukraine may have backfired in terms of what was intended and what has actually happened. 02.44 - Konstantin von Eggert If you look back to mid December, people in the Kremlin were thinking and actually were saying: Ukraine is in our pockets. Yes, the Crimea now is in Russia’s pockets, but as far as Ukraine is concerned, it’s far from being in Russia’s pockets. Actually, I think that Russia’s influence in Ukraine, especially in Kiev, has dwindled to nearly zero. And I suppose that this is the law of unintended consequences that Lilia Shevtsova, so eloquently usually speaks about. It is about creating narratives, which in the end have their own logic. Sometimes you can control them, sometimes you cannot. And I think that this does create funnily enough or tragically enough, depending on how you look at it, more instability in Russia, not only externally, but possibly domestically. 03.35 - Paul King – voice-over What is clear that what some have described as the mistakes of the approach of 2008, have not been repeated in 2014. And that at least is to be welcomed. 03.46 - Alex Petriashvili This time the reaction was there, is there and I hope very much that there will be a stronger reaction if it goes farther. 03.59 - Linas Linkevičius Non-action is provocative. No decision is provocative. This is a signal and this should be realised one day. It really should be learned. But sometimes we need many, many lessons. Many, many wake-up calls to be woken up, which is sad, but this is reality. NATO Review www.nato.int/review The opinions expressed in NATO Review do not necessarily reflect those of NATO or its member countries. This video contains footage from ITN. While this video may be reproduced and used in its entirety, ITN footage cannot be used as part of a new production.

Countries have increased their links in a smaller, globalised world. But reactions to Russia's actions in Ukraine mean that a brake has to be put on some of this interlinking. Has globalisation made it easier or more difficult to react? Has it made it impossible to punish Russia without suffering pain at home? And where next for the sanctions and counter-sanctions? 00.09 - Paul King – Editor, NATO Review – voice-over Globalisation has made all of our lives more dependent on each other. As barriers fall and unions are built, the idea is that all of us stand to lose more in conflicts in a globalised world. But will this idea prove true in dealing with Russia’s activities in Ukraine? 00.27 – Liam Fox – Former UK Secretary of Defence The great upside of globalisation should be that greater interdependence economically and should make countries less willing to be aggressive, but it is of course based on the fundamental premise that all countries are equally rational. 00.45 – Alex Petriashvili – State Minister of Georgia on European and Euro-Atlantic Integration Europe is opening borders and giving the opportunities to build bridges. As we see, the Russian Federation is trying to build new fences, new barbed wires on our territory. It is time to build bridges and to forget about the fences. 01.05 - Paul King – voice-over But globalisation does not automatically lead to peace, either today or in previous examples of close relationships. 01.15 – Prof Julian Lindley-French – Director, Europa Analytica Well this is not the first age of globalisation, the 19th century was. A hundred years ago there were many, even at this late date before the outbreak of World War I, who said: We are not going to war because we’re too economically interdependent. 01.26 – Rob De Wijk – Founder Hague Centre for Strategic Studies Globalisation is going on for decades. It’s not something new. No, what is new, is the shift in balance of power in the world and the shifting centre of gravity, the economic shifting of gravity; and consequently the political centre of gravity, which is shifting to the East. What’s happening at the Crimea is very comparable to what’s happening right now in the South-China Sea. 01.58 - Paul King – voice-over So, globalisation has spawned its own conflicts, not got rid of them. And security has become even more important for the economic development that globalisation is supposed to bring. 02.09 – Ten Jianqun – Director, China Institute of International Studies, Beijing In recent years the South-China Sea has become a hot spot. The security, you know, should be two sides of one coin: one economy, another is security. 02.21 - Paul King – voice-over And it’s not just conflicts, which highlight the changing landscape. Where security forces are positioned is also part of the shifting sands. 02.31 – Ten Jianqun – Director, China Institute of International Studies, Beijing I think China is the largest contributor among P5 in peacekeeping troops in Africa. 02.40 - Paul King – voice-over Using economics as a weapon can hurt in a globalised world, but this is no guarantee that it will have the desired effect. 02.48 – Prof Julian Lindley-French – Director, Europa Analytica Yes, economic sanctions, economic penalties, costs rather than benefits for inappropriate action… They are calculated as part of the broad remit of choices that a state makes. But if a state or a regime becomes sufficiently committed to a cause of action for reasons that may not be immediately apparent to those outside of that state, then no amount of economic sanction will actually work if that state or regime believes it’s fundamental to its very survival. 03.23 - Paul King – voice-over And finally, it’s ironically probably the national, not the international, globalised audiences that matter most in the recent moves by President Putin. 03.34 – Konstantin von Eggert – Kommersant FM Radio, Editor in Chief We somehow forgot that there is a huge domestic angle to all these things. It is about Putin’s new legitimacy. Yes, he’s officially president, but he’s in fact a national leader who does not just ensure economic stability. Actually, that’s probably not as important to him as it used to be in his first presidential term, but more about him giving Russia a new face, a new spring in Russia’s step and a new image for himself. NATO Review www.nato.int/review The opinions expressed in NATO Review do not necessarily reflect those of NATO or its member countries. This video contains footage from ITN. While this video may be reproduced and used in its entirety, ITN footage cannot be used as part of a new production.

00.06 – 01.39: images of NATO’s 65 years (1949 – 2014) 01.46: Defending your freedom to party, to protest, to be 01.53: since 1949 NATO Review www.nato.int/review The opinions expressed in NATO Review do not necessarily reflect those of NATO or its member countries. Artist: Fire & Ice Title: Out Of Darkness Mix: Original Mix Written & Produced by L. Vee & Jurgen Leyers – Published by Bonzai Music Division (adm. by High Fashion Music) Belgium Licensed from XTC – Music For the Mind P & C 2003 – Backcatalogue BVBA, Belgium ISRC: BEZ450111023 This video contains footage from ITN. While this video may be reproduced and used in its entirety, ITN footage cannot be used as part of a new production.

Lord Robertson was the NATO Secretary General on 9/11. He is the only Secretary General to have ever invoked the Alliance's Article 5. NATO Review asked him for a review of how the Alliance has done in its first 65 years - and whether it will make another 65. 00.08: What has NATO learned from recent events in Ukraine? 00.12 – Lord Robertson – Former NATO Secretary General It was perfectly foreseeable that the Ukrainian crisis was going to come. We have to start inventing the wheel every time something comes along. We went through the cold war, we went through Bosnia, then we went through Kosovo, then we had a crisis in Macedonia, then we had Afghanistan. In each case we produced voluminous lessons learned. And we put them on the shelf and each time something came along, we started from square one. 00.41: Is NATO still too dependent on the US? 00.45– Lord Robertson – Former NATO Secretary General I think there are some people who live with delusion that if the challenge comes in the future in the security world, then essentially the Americans will be there. The Europeans better abandon the delusion that they’ll always be there because they might not, and that there will be circumstances where they certainly will not. So they’ve got to make the capacities and the thinking and the strategies that encompass a very new world where they’re going to have to show much bigger responsibilities then they were willing to do in the past. 01.24: What does this mean for defence budgets? 01.28 – Lord Robertson – Former NATO Secretary General There’s a huge problem about declining defence budgets. You either make the case or you lose the cash. And what you do with the cash is also important because the public are increasingly frustrated by the desire for capabilities that don’t arrive or are flawed, overtime, over cost… So we’ve got to be more prudent with how we buy things. They’re being bought for yesterday’s enemies and not tomorrow’s threats. 02.00 - What are these new threats? 02.04 – Lord Robertson – Former NATO Secretary General I went to speak to a local Rotary Club, in my own locality recently. So I outlined to them my catalogue of current threats: cyber, terrorism, extremism, failed states etcetera. And you know, they were sort of saying: You are getting us depressed. I said: Well, if you look at it all, this catalogue of problems that are out there, each one of which can suddenly erupt upon us just as the events of the last weeks have done, yes, you can get depressed, but there is an answer and that is good, robust defence capabilities. 02.42: How confident are you in NATO’s capabilities today? 02.46 – Lord Robertson – Former NATO Secretary General So when I came to NATO headquarters in October of 1999 I said my three priorities were capabilities, capabilities, capabilities… Well, if I was arriving now, and somebody will be by the end of the year, it’s exactly the same. I hate to say that maybe it will take another crisis for people to start thinking soberly and sensibly of what is needed and often that’s maybe the only way that you get the politicians and the Alliance to think about it properly, but without them, you know, we in general, never mind NATO in particular, are not going to be equipped to make our populations as safe as they think they are. 03.30: Following Ukraine’s crisis, what’s NATO’s role? 03.34 – Lord Robertson – Former NATO Secretary General One of the great dangers of this present crisis is that NATO goes back to the idea of territorial defence. That’s of course essential, but it’s not NATO’s future. NATO’s future is dealing with the broad range of challenges that we’re going to face in the future, whether that is terrorism or resource conflicts or climate change and cyber warfare, you know, all of these different things that are now facing the world, they will not make people safer. 04.09: Will NATO still exist in another 65 years? 04.13 – Lord Robertson – Former NATO Secretary General I absolutely believe that NATO will be around in 65 years’ time because it’ll still be necessary. The problems, the threats, the challenges, both in security and the wider political context, won’t have gone away. So, that kind of organisation will be required in the future and that has been hugely successful in stopping Stalin, stopping the bloodbath in the Balkans, you know, stabilising Afghanistan… 04.42: What will future NATO look like? 04.45 – Lord Robertson – Former NATO Secretary General It’ll be a bigger NATO in the future. I hope just as effective, but it’s going to have to encompass people at the moment who themselves don’t think they want to be part of NATO, but whose people will eventually say: That’s the way. We’ll have a safer country and a safer world as well. There’s no security in Europe, unless there’s an eventual perspective of an organisation that says: We stand for values, stand for liberal values, and that has to include Russia, whether under the present leadership or a future leadership, because the previous leadership, when president Putin was first president, believed in exactly that objective. And I think that’s what we’ve got to aim for. So, yeah, in 65 years time somebody, not me, will be saying: What about the next 65 years? NATO Review www.nato.int/review The opinions expressed in NATO Review do not necessarily reflect those of NATO or its member countries. This video contains footage from ITN. While this video may be reproduced and used in its entirety, ITN footage cannot be used as part of a new production.

Getting a new defense product to market takes up to 10 years. So what do industry leaders feel we should be worrying about now? We ask six senior company representatives to reveal where they see the biggest threats developing. 00.06 – Voice-over – Paul King – Editor, NATO Review NATO Review asked representatives of six leading defense companies what they think will be the biggest threats in the next 10 years. Here we present their answers. 00.17 – Jeff Kohler – Vice President, International Business Development, Boeing I don’t think we still understand critical infrastructure protection and how cyber can affect that. As we sit here right at the entrance of the Bosporus and you just look at all the shipping that’s going through, it wouldn’t take much to distort, to disrupt the flow of that, causing confusion and who is going which way and so forth. So, this is a serious threat we have to pay attention to. I think, again from my commercial aircraft’s side, we’re very concerned about it. As commercial airplanes become more and more digital and electronic, we have actually started to put cyber protection into the software of our commercial airplanes. Because if you think about it, as they enter an airport environment, they’re starting to exchange information. And so we have to able to protect the aircraft software itself. So, there are a lot of issues coming down the road, just on cyber alone. 01.16 – Martin Hill – Vice President Defense, EU and NATO affairs, Thales For me… cyber. The new global commons is cyber, the network. Every single item that we have depends on cyber. The timing signals from Satnav fundamentally define every single financial transaction… All of our critical infrastructure is controlled by some sort of network. This is the… has to be the area where we’re going to face problems. And we’re going to have to spend a fortune actually. 01.53 – David Perry – Corporate Vice President, Northrop Grumman There will be a massive shift towards unmanned systems, not just aircraft, but unmanned systems. There will be a massive increase in interoperability, in interconnectedness of those systems as they are deployed around the world. And many have called that the ‘Internet of things’. So, just about every tangible device could be connected in some way, sharing information on the grid. Rather than just your smartphone, think of everything in your life being somehow enabled with some degree of connectivity. 02.29 – Steve Williams – Regional President for Continental Europe, Lockheed Martin You’ll see more dual use. What used to be just looking for enemy targets, now can actually help you in some of our satellite constellations today, better understand the environment, looking towards the Arctic, where someone may have an issue and need combat search and rescue or better awareness. I think the tools for that are going to be far more heavily relied on, just as we do with our iPhone today. Ten years ago it was just a phone. 03.00 – Alberto de Benedictis – CEO, Finmeccanica UK We’re looking at all those areas that allow smaller forces to be more effective anywhere a conflict is required. So, whether it’s commanding control, whether it’s joined ISTAR, whether it’s cyber, all those areas that quote unquote connect forces and allow them to multiply the capability, that’s, I think, one of the biggest focus areas. 03.33 – Håkan Buskhe – President and CEO, Saab I think basically to fast reaction equipment, to have a good surveillance capability and possibility to move the right equipment to exact targeting will be the key going forward. And then of course it’s connected to information technology in many parts. And I think that’s probably the thing that will be moving ahead if we see the trends today. The problem with trends is that they will be interrupted by other things. NATO Review www.nato.int/review The opinions expressed in NATO Review do not necessarily reflect those of NATO or its member countries. This video contains footage from ITN. While this video may be reproduced and used in its entirety, ITN footage cannot be used as part of a new production.

NATO Review looks inside the KGB prison where Latvians were locked up, tortured or killed. We hear how today's leading Latvians were affected by Soviet occupation. And we ask if they see echoes in today's Russian aggression.