Estonia

NATO's Baltic Air Policing Mission Becomes Permanent

Jorge Benitez — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:59:35 -0600

From Ott Tammik, Estonian Public Broadcasting: NATO has decided to make permanent its Baltic air policing mission, in which larger member states patrol the region with their fighter jets on a rota basis.

Media reported earlier today that the air policing mission was extended to 2018, but upon inquiry, the Defense Ministry said the new agreement is “essentially permanent.”

Defense Minister Mart Laar called the development a major step that means that Estonia does not have to worry about having to acquire its own fighter aircraft - an expensive and complicated endeavor. "Instead we can concentrate on developing essential initial defense capabilities that are more suited for Estonia's capacity. For the people of Estonia, this is a clear sign that NATO exists,” said Laar.

From Ott Tammik, Estonian Public Broadcasting: Ministry Dubs NATO's Baltic Fighter Mission Biggest Victory in Years

Defense Ministry officials find it hard to overstate the importance of NATO's decision on Wednesday to make the Baltic air policing mission permanent.

"I don't think it is an exaggeration to call this the biggest international victory [for Estonia] in recent years,” said the ministry's secretary general, Mikk Marran. . . .

"After several years of consultations the allies found that the existing solution is the most reasonable, and there is no point in coming together every four years and making the same decision," Marran told ETV. “The decision is the outcome of several years of intense work by Estonian politicians, officials, diplomats and military leaders." (photo: ADC Eric Sarda/French Air Force) (via @edwardlucas)

NATO Doesn’t Yet Know How To Protect Its Networks

Jorge Benitez — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 07:42:01 -0600

From Spencer Ackerman, Danger Room: Here at NATO Headquarters, the 2007 denial-of-service attack that took websites of member nation Estonia offline forms something of a template for worry. But there’s also a dawning recognition that online threats are more persistent than episodic, like with the digital economic espionage into western networks coming from Russia and China. But they don’t yet know what kind of malicious online action would trigger a NATO response.

They also don’t know what exactly is up to the alliance to protect. The U.S. military, for instance, has (sorta) promised to (mostly) stay away from defending the civilian internet.

Keeping out of the civilians’ lane is a two-layered problem for the alliance: most of the information infrastructure in the U.S. is privately owned; in some European countries, the state is involved. But even in the cases where the military might protect it, when does such protection pass from a national issue to one where a multinational organization ought to intervene? . . .

Right now, NATO’s in education mode — and building new social networks to get its head around the problem. Most countries’ civilian CIOs haven’t ever interacted with the alliance. Nor have the executives and bureaucrats who’ve built the online and data infrastructures for NATO’s member countries. So NATO’s hosting more meetings with unfamiliar faces over calorie-rich Belgian lunches.

It’s also thinking through what kind of cyber-mitigation it can lend to an ally that gets hit with a DDOS or other cyberattack. Additional server space? Analytic sleuthing to track down the malefactors? Still TBD. And that’s before an actual response to the attack would kick in. . . .

But one thing appears to be off the table. “I don’t see NATO developing offensive cyber doctrine for the time being,” [NATO's Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges Jamie] Shea says. They’re too busy trying to figure out how to play defense. (photo: NATO)

NATO defence ministers achieve breakthrough on Baltic air patrol mission

Jorge Benitez — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 06:39:35 -0600

From the Ministry of Defense of Lithuania: On February 2, Thursday, Lithuanian Minister of National Defence Rasa Juknevičienė while at the NATO Defence Ministers meeting in Brussels noted that a breakthrough had been achieved in the effort to have a prolonged Baltic Air policing mission in the Baltic States.

“A considerable attention was paid to the Air Policing mission in the today’s discussion on Smart Defence with the Ministers in the discussion with the Ministers. I am happy to know that the mission is considered as a perfect example of Smart Defence for NATO“, – the Lithuanian Minister said. According to R.Juknevičienė, it is very important that a long-term agreement had been achieved at the military level. “The Baltic States are committed to increase their contribution to the mission. It is very important to make appealing to our partners”, said the Minister.

According to the Minister, the following step before the Chicago Summit is to make an agreement regarding the future of the Air Policing mission at the political level.

In the meeting the Ministers supported the idea of Smart Defence and agreed that this mode of defence should not cause a decrease in defence financing. It was emphasized at the event that NATO continuously face a range of threats and challenges therefore Smart Defence is of great value to national forces of the member states. A declaration on Smart Defence is expected to be approved in Chicago. According to the Minister, it is a long-term direction that Lithuania has selected in realizing capabilities for the country’s and the Alliance’s security. (photo: Reuters)

Russia charges former Estonian spy chief in Arctic Sea hijacking

Jorge Benitez — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:02:38 -0600

From RIA Novosti: Investigators in the northern Russian port of Arkhangelsk have charged in absentia Estonia's former spy chief, Eerik-Niiles Kross, with organizing the hijacking of the cargo ship Arctic Sea in 2009, a spokesman for the regional Investigative Committee, Yury Shperling said on Friday.

“We sent the documents [on the case] to Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) to put Kross on the federal and international wanted lists,” Shperling said.

The Arctic Sea went missing in the Atlantic on July 24, 2009 while carrying a $2 million shipment of timber from Finland to Algeria. It was intercepted by the Russian Navy two weeks later off West Africa.

Estonian Justice Minister Kristen Michal said Estonia will not give up its nationals to Russia and if the Russian authorities wish to question Kross they should do so via the Estonian Prosecutor General’s Office.

From the AP: Russia says the ship was hijacked in the Baltic Sea, that its navy seized it weeks later off Cape Verde and that the eight hijackers have been tried and convicted.

Speculation has persisted, however, that the ship was actually carrying Russian S-300 surface-to-air missiles for Iran or Syria.

From Kai Joost, Baltic Reports: Dmitrijs Savins, a Latvian national and the leader of seven other hijackers that included four Estonians, two Russians and another Latvian, was convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison on Friday. Russian state television reported that during the trial Savins said the motive for the case was financial and the operation was organized by Eerik-Niiles Kross, who served as the director of Security Coordination Office in the Estonian State Chancellery, which is connected to the Ministry of Defense Information Service (Riigi Teabeamet), from 1995 to 2000. . . .

Kross denied Savins’ allegation in interviews with Estonian and Finnish media last week.

“The claim that I ordered the Arctic Sea hijacking is ridiculous,” Kross told Helsingin Sanomat on Friday. “The story was started in the Russian press, and the information did not get there by accident.”

Chief State Prosecutor Lavly Lepp told Postimees that no connection between hijacking the ship and Eerik-Niiles Kross was found during Estonia’s criminal investigation of the hijacking incident.

“The prosecutor’s office and Estonian security police have checked all connections between Dmitri Savins and the people he communicated in Estonia that were relevant to the investigation,” Lepp said. (photo: Postimees/Scanpix)

Can NATO Adapt to Cyber Warfare?

Jorge Benitez — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 08:51:52 -0600

From Robin Tim Weis, FrumForum: What is the likelihood that NATO would invoke Article Five–NATO’s collective defense clause–in response to a cyber attack? The possibility first entered media discourse back in October 2010 when the German Süddeutsche Zeitung reported on an internal memo in which NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen discussed the use of Article Five in the case of an cyber attack. . . .

Karl-Heinz Lather, former chief of staff of NATO’s SHAPE stressed to me that NATO’s cyber strategy is first and foremost internally orientated. Much like a bank, NATO has to first secure its own critical infrastructures. Hence the security of “NATO’s own networks” has clear priority before any national, international, or regional networks or grids.

Lather did confess that there currently is no “recipe” which NATO can use to clearly respond to cyber attacks. “Article five responses require very concrete targets, which you don’t have with cyber attacks.” As a result, Lather deems the Article Five issue as off the table for the alliance.

However, Jamie Shea, NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges seemed more assured on the issue. While cyber attacks are “admittedly difficult” he did voice confidence in the progress of NATO’s “cyber forensics” especially since “cyberspace [has become a] leading area of investment for the private sector IT companies and governments alike.”

In addition, Shea stressed a legal parameter for responding to cyber attack where “countries suspected of launching cyber attacks could be put under a legal obligation to cooperate with an investigation on behalf of the victim.”

Despite the barriers presented by “laundering”, one must recognize that state-sponsored cyber-attacks are on the rise and require a strong deterrent.

Jaak Aaviksoo, the Estonian defense minister has urged NATO to resolve the cyber matter since at the moment, “Not a single NATO defense minister would define a cyber-attack as a clear military action at present.” (photo: FrumForum)

The Russian-Georgian war as a geostrategic turning point

Jorge Benitez — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 15:13:52 -0600

From Fyodor Lukyanov, Russia in Global Affairs: President Dmitry Medvedev made a remarkable statement during a speech to military officers in southern Russia early this week. Regarding the August 2008 war between Russian and Georgia, he said, “For some of our partners, including NATO, it was a signal that they must think about geopolitical stability before making a decision to expand the alliance.”

This is the first time a Russian official has acknowledged that its conflict with Georgia was not only about “protecting compatriots,” but also about the need to forestall strategic changes on Russia’s border. Georgia pounced, claiming that Medvedev’s statement amounts to an admission that Russia bears responsibility for starting the war. . . .

Medvedev spoke a truth that was apparent to everyone; the real cause of the five-day war was tensions that had been accumulating in the region for several years. In the mid-2000s, the U.S. administration decided to expand NATO into the post-Soviet space. Ukraine and Georgia hoped to join but were eventually denied membership. Washington and several European capitals disregarded Moscow’s warning that this would be interpreted as crossing the line. They argued that Russia has always been against the alliance’s expansion but ultimately accepts the inevitable. Moscow failed to convince its partners that there is a major difference between Poland, or even Estonia, and Ukraine. Ultimately, tensions came to a head and the pretext for Russia’s invasion came in the form of the attack ordered by Mikheil Saakashvili to “restore constitutional order.”

Looking back on the five-day war, it is clear that it was a major turning point for all sides involved.

For Russia, it was psychological revenge after 20-year-long geopolitical retreat. It was proof that Moscow can say no. The United States and its allies were shown that Moscow was serious about drawing a line in the sand. They accepted the signal.

Fyodor Lukyanov is editor in chief of the journal Russia in Global Affairs. (photo: Reuters) (via Real Clear World)

Medvedev: Russia's 2008 war with Georgia prevented NATO growth

Jorge Benitez — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:57:53 -0600

From RIA Novosti: By going to war with Georgia in 2008, Russia halted NATO's expansion eastward, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Monday.

“If we had wavered in 2008, the geopolitical layout would have been different; a range of countries which the North Atlantic [Treaty Organization] tries to artificially ‘protect’ would have been within it,” Medvedev said at a meeting with military officers in Vladikavkaz in southern Russia. . . .

Russia and the alliance now have “turned back on direct rivalry,” the Russian president added. “However we should acknowledge that we have different stances on how a range of defense issues should be settled.”

NATO’s presence in the proximity to Russian borders concerns the country’s leadership and “creates certain nuisances to us,” Medvedev said. Three former Soviet republics – Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia – are NATO member-states. (photo Dimitriy Astahov/RIA Novosti)

U.S. joining NATO's fight against cyber threats

Jorge Benitez — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:36:18 -0600

From John Vandiver, Stars and Stripes: The United States will join the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defense Centre of Excellence during a formal ceremony scheduled for Thursday at the center’s headquarters in Estonia, a country that experienced a massive cyber attack that disabled websites of numerous government institutions in 2007.

The cyber center, which was established one year after that high-profile attack, now includes 10 nations. The center’s objective is to help NATO’s efforts to bolster defense capabilities in the face of cyber threats.

“Our vision is to be the main source of expertise in the field of cooperative cyber defense by accumulating, creating and disseminating knowledge in related matters within NATO, NATO nations and partners,” according to the center’s mission statement.

For the past three years, the center has aimed to accomplish that goal by hosting technical courses, workshops and cyber defense exercises.

In addition to the U.S., Poland also is a new partner at the cyber center. As one of the 10 sponsoring nations, the U.S. must provide experts to work at the center and contribute to a shared budget. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Slovakia and Spain also are contributors. (photo: Carrie Kessler/USAF)