Category Archives: NATO

Stars and Stripes

US cyber warrior begins NATO job as Trump pressures alliance ... Stars and Stripes U.S. Army 1st Lt. Marina Northrup, a plans officer assigned to the 44th Expeditionary Signal Battalion, 2nd Theater Signal Brigade, speaks at a June 26, 2017, ... and more »

View original post here:
US cyber warrior begins NATO job as Trump pressures alliance ... - Stars and Stripes

Fears the US will withdraw its security umbrella from Europe could push countries to develop their own nuclear weapons, according to a group that monitors global arsenals.

France and the United Kingdom are the European Unions only nuclear powers, both having fewer than 5% of the number of warheads held by the US and Russia.

But experts say that could change amid Donald Trumps threats to reduce the USs commitment to NATO.

President Trump thinks the U.S. pays too much to guarantee European countries security and has urged NATO members to spend more on defence.

Trumps statements and general style so far appear to have increased concern in Europe and Asia about US security commitments, including providing a nuclear umbrella, Hans Kristensen, associate senior fellow at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) told Euronews.

If those concerns continue and deepen, they could potentially cause some of those countries to reevaluate whether they need to develop nuclear weapons for their own security.

The latest statistics on the nuclear weapons reveal the US and Russia both have around 7,000 warheads each.

The pair, which own 93 percent of the worlds nuclear weapons, are on track to meet a 2018 deadline to reduce their stockpiles.

While France and the UK have maintained or reduced their capabilities, three Asian countries India, Pakistan and North Korea have upped theirs.

SIPRI says while overall the number of warheads is on a downward trend, all nine nuclear powers are modernising their arsenals.

It says the U.S. plans to spend $400 billion (349 billion euros) over the next decade to maintain and upgrade its nuclear forces.

The projected increases in U.S. spending are not unexpected, added Kristensen. The current U.S. administration is continuing the ambitious nuclear modernisation plans set out by President Barack Obama.

Trump has said the U.S. must strengthen and expand its nuclear capacity until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.

Although Trump cant directly affect other countries nuclear arsenals, his policies can certainly influence how they view the need for nuclear weapons, said Kristensen.

An increase or significant improvement of the US nuclear arsenal is likely to help fuel modernization plans in other countries.

Thats not to say they wouldnt modernise their forces if the United States didnt, but US improvements can drive requirements in those countries to compensate or match the US capabilities.

Read the rest here:
NATO fears could push Europe towards more nuclear weapons - euronews

In the wake of last weeks massive Petya ransomware attack in Eastern Europe, researchers are reaching consensus that the incident was a politically-motivated cyberattack. According to CNBC, the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCD COE) recently put out a statement claiming that the attack was like done by a state actor or a group with state approval. The development means that the cyberattack could be viewed as an act of war, triggering Article 5 of the Washington Treaty and compelling NATO allies to respond.

"As important government systems have been targeted, then in case the operation is attributed to a state this could count as a violation of sovereignty, wrote Tom Minrik, a researcher at the CCD COE law branch, in the release. Consequently, this could be an internationally wrongful act, which might give the targeted states several options to respond with countermeasures.

This could be an internationally wrongful act.

The statement puts the CCD COE, a NATO-sponsored cybersecurity research center based in Estonia, in agreement with researchers poring over the details of the attack. The Petya virus was seemingly aimed at central Ukrainian institutions instead of a broad array of ransom targets, and Ukraine bore the brunt of the attack. That fact, along with the basic errors that make ransom seem like a poor reason for a campaign of this scale and complexity, makes it looks like cyber criminals were not the culprits.

"The operation was not too complex, but still complex and expensive enough to have been prepared and executed by unaffiliated hackers for the sake of practice, the Centre wrote in the release. Cyber criminals are not behind this either, as the method for collecting the ransom was so poorly designed that the ransom would probably not even cover the cost of the operation.

Its possible Russia sponsored the campaign, given its history of military and cyber attacks in Ukraine, though theres no concrete evidence proving the Russian governments involvement. Whats more, some major Russian firms were hit in the attack. However, the Ukrainian state security service is blaming Moscow, claiming yesterday that the same Russian hackers who took down the countrys power grid last year were behind the hacks.

See the original post:
NATO could be forced to respond to the Petya attack, says new ... - The Verge

On November 19, 1919, Congress rejected the Versailles Treaty ending World War I and with it the charter of the League of Nations which was a key part of it. Principal among the reasons for the treatys rejection was a provision that committed the United States, along with the other members of the League, to the mutual defense of any member that was attacked militarily. Because treaties are the supreme law of the land second only to the Constitution Congress refused to surrender its power to declare war.

Almost thirty years later, Congress ratified the NATO Treaty despite the fact that Article 5 of that treaty contains the same mutual defense commitment. By ratifying that treaty, Congress declared war pre-emptively against any nation or non-state actor that attacked a NATO member.

With the accession of tiny Montenegro militarily as capable as the Duchy of Grand Fenwick minus the Q bomb NATO now has 29 member nations the United States is committed to defend.

Since 1949, the only time Article 5 has been invoked was after the 9/11 attacks on America. NATO, or at least most of its members, has joined us in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some NATO troops remain in Afghanistan after nearly sixteen years of war.

The threats of war that were recognized in 1949 have evolved as much as war itself. Every NATO member, including the U.S., has ignored the need to adapt the NATO Treaty to the 21st century.

As we celebrate our independence from Britain, we need to remember that they are now one of our most important allies. What they say deserves our attention and thought.

Last week UK Defense Minister Sir Michael Fallon, speaking about the recent cyberattack on the UK Parliament, suggested that his nation might respond to future cyberattacks with airstrikes or other military action. The clear implication is that the UK might invoke Article 5 to obtain NATO support for such military action.

No one considered cyberattacks when the NATO Treaty was signed because computer technology was in its infancy. But that is not to say that Article 5 is inapplicable to cyberattacks. The question boils down to this: When does a cyberattack constitute an act of war? There is no definition of a cyberattack in the NATO Treaty or elsewhere in international law.

Cyber espionage is a commonplace. U.S. defense contractors and government networks, including those of the intelligence agencies, are subjected to thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of cyberespionage attempts each day. Some succeed because every defense to them is penetrable eventually.

But cyberespionage is not cyberwar for one principal reason: it does no physical harm. Espionage only benefits the spy who remains undetected. People arent injured or killed, computer networks arent destroyed, and neither military nor civilian targets aircraft, the electricity power grid, and such are destroyed or damaged. Obviously, the cyberespionage or hacking that penetrated the UK Parliament email system wasnt an act of war.

Everyone who saw the Bruce Willis movie Live Free or Die Hard knows that cyberterrorism is not cyberespionage. The former can take down power grids, disrupt or rob financial networks, and kill people.

But theres a great deal more that cyberterrorists or nations acting against their adversaries can do. Some of those cyberattacks can and probably should be classified as acts of war.

Lets get organized. Cyberespionage isnt cyberwar. We do it as much as every other nation (and, I hope, more). Its the cost of doing business on the internet.

Leakers arent the issue. Leakers are traitors and should be caught and punished whenever possible. When CIA Director Mike Pompeo said that WikiLeaks was acting as a hostile intelligence service he was precisely right. But WikiLeaks, and others like them, are only as good as the leakers who feed them documents and data.

Hacking is a term that has lost its meaning because of its ubiquity. For the purposes of this discussion, lets exclude the innocent (or criminal) acts of individuals, governments, and terrorists gaining access to others emails and browser histories. As bad as they may be, theyre not acts of war.

But there is precedent for a definition of cyber acts of war.

In April 2007, the government of Estonia was subjected to a sustained cyberattack that lasted for weeks and effectively prevented Estonias government from functioning. The attack was almost certainly made by Russia, which naturally denied its involvement.

Estonia had become a member of NATO three years earlier. It didnt have the capability to retaliate against Russia but it could have invoked Article 5 of the NATO treaty to require participation in any military strike against Russia by the U.S. and other members. But the Russian cyberattack was, at worst, a marginal case under Article 5. Moreover no one, least of all the NATO members who are woefully deficient in defense spending, wanted to go to war over what the press characterized as a hacking incident.

Other cyberattacks were more clearly acts of war. For example, in 2007 the computer controls of many of Irans uranium enrichment centrifuges were penetrated by what reportedly was the Stuxnet computer worm that caused the centrifuges to run at excessive speed, destroying themselves. Other Iranian computer networks were also affected, bringing them down for a time.

Its almost certain that the Stuxnet attack emanated from either the United States or Israel and perhaps both. Stuxnet went far beyond espionage or hacking by materially damaging, and thus setting back, Irans nuclear weapons program. Because of its effects, the Stuxnet attacks were acts of war but Iran didnt claim them as such mainly because, at the time, it didnt have the capability to respond militarily.

Lets set the baseline. Our nation spends billions of dollars a year trying, with only middling success, to protect our cyber networks government, commercial, and private in a way that reduces but clearly doesnt eliminate the worst threats of cyberwar, including sabotage.

In setting the baseline we have to recognize that everything from most cars produced in the past ten years, to nuclear reactors, satellites, and fighter aircraft the F-35 is probably the best (i.e., worst) example are susceptible of cyberattack that can literally take over their controls and prevent them from performing their most essential missions. That vulnerability is limited only by the effectiveness of enemies efforts to penetrate their cyber defenses.

In March 2015 Adm. Mike Rogers, NSA Director and commander of U.S. Cyber Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in open session that the U.S. governments efforts to deter enemy cyberattacks werent working. Further, he said that we needed to increase our offensive cyberattack capabilities in order to create a deterrent effect. As a statement of the problem and not as an afterthought, Rogers said that then-President Obama hadnt delegated to him the authority to deploy offensive tools.

There is no reason to think that much has improved since then.

Now, we have one of our principal allies saying that at some point they may respond to a cyberattack with military action that would implicate all NATO members under Article 5. Thus, Article 5 needs to be amended to define what cyber events constitute an act of war on which the invocation of Article 5 can be justified.

This is not a trivial exercise, but lets take a crack at it.

To constitute an act of war, thereby justifying the invocation of Article 5, a cyberattack should be defined as an act by a nation or non-state actor such as a terrorist network that: (a) is performed by an identifiable actor and (b) attempted to cause or succeeded in causing physical injury to people or property (including damage to computer software) on a significant scale or (c) had the effect of preventing a government from employing its defense assets in peacetime or otherwise defending some or all of its citizens from harm.

The definition I propose is relatively simple. If a nation, or a non-state actor such as a terrorist network, commits a cyberattack that kills or injures people on a large scale or damages or destroys a significant amount of government or personal property, the event should be defined as an act of war. Taking control of an F-35, preventing it from navigating, using its weapons or even causing it to crash, would fit the definition. The Stuxnet attack on Iran would also fit.

Amending Article 5 to include a definition of cyberattacks would both limit it to properly prevent member states from using it to justify military action on baseless grounds and put enemy states on notice that certain cyberattacks are off-limits. As war evolves, so must the law of war.

Read more from the original source:
NATO and Cyberwar: Will Britain Invoke Article 5? - American Spectator

By

July 1, 2017, 7:00 PM EDT

U.S. President Donald Trump will have less scope to bash the North Atlantic Treaty Organization now that an American is at the helm of the alliances technology and cyber security arm.

Source: NCI Agency

Kevin Scheid, a veteran of the U.S. Department of Defense, became head on July 1 of the NATO Communications and Information Agency, which runs the electronic networks of the 29-nation alliance. NCI Agency spends about 1 billion euros ($1.1 billion) a year to ensure NATOs technological backbone is up to the tasks of fighting terrorism, protecting European airspace, conducting maritime operations and withstanding cyber attacks.

Not only do we think about the future and trying to develop the capabilities that the command needs and the nations need, and develop those capabilities, but at the same time we have to make sure that the existing networks are up and running and secure, Scheid, who is serving a three-year term as general manager of NCI Agency, said in an interview in Brussels. This gets NCI Agency deeply involved in the area of cyber security.

Trump has shaken seven decades of American foreign policy by questioning the relevance of U.S.-led NATO, which he called obsolete during his presidential campaign. Since entering the White House in January, Trump has dropped that label while pressing allies in Europe to foot more of the common defense bill and NATO as a whole to play a bigger role in fighting terrorism.

NCI Agency, with a staff of more than 2,000, was formed in 2012 from the merger of five NATO units. The group contracts out to industries to bolster the alliances land, sea, air and cyber capabilities and will be seeking bids for 3.2 billion euros in orders for satellite communications, air and missile defenses, cyber security and advanced software.

Cyber security has also moved to the top of NATOs agenda, with Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg saying attacks on the alliances electronic infrastructure spiked 60 percent last year to an average of 500 a month. Most of the incidents were state-sponsored, according to NATO.

The worldwide cyber threat was highlighted last week when an attack that started in Ukraine hit businesses, port operators and government systems in the U.S., South America, Asia and elsewhere in Europe.

To read more about Trump and NATO funding, click here

Among Scheids most immediate tasks is to ensure that NATOs new headquarters in the Belgian capital has properly protected information-technology systems. Construction of the 1.1 billion-euro glass-and-steel structure, which Scheid called one of the worlds most complex and largest security systems, is virtually completed while IT work continues.

What has been challenging about the new NATO headquarters is the complexity of a smart building, he said. Its a network surrounded by glass, steel and some cement.

NATO intends to start moving 4,500 staff members to the site, located across the street from the current headquarters, later this year. Scheid said the new building is more complex than what was estimated early on.

At a May 25 meeting where the alliances leaders inaugurated the complex, Trump, after hectoring fellow leaders to increase military spending, said: I never asked once what the new NATO headquarters cost. I refused to do that. But it is beautiful.

Read the rest here:
U.S. Cyber Warrior Begins NATO Job as Trump Pressures Alliance ... - Bloomberg

Newsweek

Russia and NATO War Games in Europe See New Player: China Newsweek Russia and China have begun naval exercises in the Baltic Sea, the most significant sign of military cooperation between the two major powers in a region seen as a flashpoint for Moscow's rivalry with Western military alliance NATO. Russia's ambassador ... and more »

More here:
Russia and NATO War Games in Europe See New Player: China - Newsweek

Former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO John Stavridis said Sunday that President Trump's upcoming meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin is his best chance to confront him about meddling int he 2016 election and start peace talks.

"[The] meeting is a good thing," Stavridis told radio host John Catsimatidis inan interview that aired Sunday on AM 970 in New York.

"It is an opportunity for President Trump to confront President Putin about his interference in our election."

Trump plans to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin next week at the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, their first face-to-face encounter since Trumps inauguration in January.

National security adviser H.R. McMaster told reportersThursdaythe two leaders plan to meet. A spokesperson for Putin previously said the meeting would take place on the sidelines of the summit.

McMaster said there is no set agenda for the meeting, butStavridis suggested Sunday that it would also be a good opportunity to discuss ending war in Syria.

"We ought to be exploring with President Putin how we can cooperate to end this terrible war in Syria. This is not going to be solved on the battlefield. It is going to require a diplomatic resolution. And only the United States and Russia working together can resolve it,"Stavridis said.

"Today I think it is clear frankly with the Russian assistance to Assad that Assad is not going anywhere. So, rather than end up in a situation where another 500,000 people die, I think it is time to have a political accommodation."

Trump has been signaling a more aggressive and antagonistic approach to Syria and Russia, Assads primary backer, since the chemical attack moving away from his campaign promises to forge better ties with Moscow and to avoid U.S. military interventions in the Middle East.

There have been conflicting signals from administration officials over what actions by Syria might provoke another U.S. response, and the administration has yet to offer support for other forms of intervention, such as setting up a safe zone for civilians.

More here:
Ex-NATO leader: Meeting is Trump's chance to 'confront' Putin on hacking - The Hill (blog)

NATOs neweasternmost deployments, intended to deter Russia from striking U.S. allies in the Baltic, are now fully operational ahead of Russias mass drill in the region.

NATOs Secretary General Jens Stoltenbergannounced Thursday that the alliances enhanced forward presence is now fully operational in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland This sends a clear message to any possible aggressor: We are determined, we are united.

The measures include the rotation of 4,500 troops who have begun their tours of rotation through the countries, and the formation of command centers in Poland and Romania which have been activated. British Royal Air Force jets are deployed in support of a NATO brigade in Romania as well.

Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Read More: Worried by Putin, Lithuania and Latvia want a European Army to back them up

The measures form part of NATOs efforts to address concerns from allies bordering Russiain the aftermath of Moscows annexation of Crimea. The alliance first formed a communication structure and rapid response strategy on its eastern flank and then last summer announced the four battalion deployment in the northeast.

During the first summer of the troops being fully operational, they will have a Russian-led drill on their borders, which Lithuania has already labeled a simulated attack on NATO.

Part of the concern around the drill is that in previous instances, Russia has launched a snap drill at the same time as drills announced beforehand, thereby deploying a larger number of troops around a larger expanse of land than previously agreed with NATO. NATO has called on Russia to halt such initiatives as they violate theVienna Documentthe agreement on military exercise transparency.

Stoltenberg said the upcoming diplomatic forum, known as the NATO-Russia Council, would make a good opportunity to touch base with Moscow before its Zapad (West) drill in September.

We expect Russia to follow those obligations, they havent done that so far, he said. Russia has used different loopholes and not notified and not facilitated international inspections of their exercises for many, many years, he said.

We are not mirroring exactly what Russia is doing but we are responding to a more assertive Russia, he added

Visit link:
US Allies in NATO Ready to Stop Russia in Baltic - Newsweek

By Kevin Diaz, Washington Bureau

Photo: Houston Chronicle File Photo

For Kay Bailey Hutchison, coming out of political retirement after three terms in the Senate will put her in a whole new partisan sphere than the one she left when she decided not to run in 2012.

For Kay Bailey Hutchison, coming out of political retirement after three terms in the Senate will put her in a whole new partisan sphere than the one she left when she decided not to run in 2012.

Hutchisons NATO appointment puts her in a whole new world

WASHINGTON Former U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchisons selection as President Donald Trumps ambassador to NATO continues a run of high-profile Texans in the Trump administration, and one that may soften the edges of the presidents prickly relations with the outside world.

She will be joining former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, now Trumps energy secretary, and former Exxon Mobil chief Rex Tillerson, now Trumps secretary of state. At the White House, she also will recognize former Texas Republican Party Chairman Steve Munisteri, now deputy director of the office of public liaison in the Trump administration.

For Hutchison, 73, coming out of political retirement after three terms in the Senate will put her in a whole new partisan sphere than the one she left when she decided not to run in 2012.

Political observers will be watching to see how Hutchison, the most senior female Republican senator by the end of her tenure, will navigate Trumps well-known insistence on absolute loyalty, the more so since his messy twitter attack Thursday on MSNBC morning show host Mika Brzezinski.

In an MSNBC interview in April last year, Hutchison said Trump was wrong to attack Hillary Clinton on gender and needed to stay more focused on issues and experience.

The context that hes using, personal attacks on his opponents, both Republicans as well as Democrats, is just the wrong attack right now, Hutchison said. It is time for him to start talking substance, and I thought his foreign policy speech was a step in the right direction. And I think we dont need any more of these personal, little slights.

Hutchison, originally a backer of Jeb Bush for president in 2016, also said she wasnt sure at the time if she could support Trump if he won the GOP nomination.

As ambassador to NATO, Hutchison will become the face of Trumps uneasy relationship with the 28-nation military alliance, which he once called obsolete.

The president has pressed European members of the alliance to spend more money on defense, saying the U.S. was being shortchanged. It presumably will be up to Hutchison now to drive a harder bargain.

As a senator, Hutchison served on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Defense and Military Construction appropriations subcommittees.

As she faces the Senate confirmation process, she has received the thumbs-up of both current Texas senators. With a proven track record of getting results, she has always done what she thought was in the best interest of Texas and our country, said Texas U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate.

Sen. Ted Cruz also weighed in on Friday, saying her past Senate committee posts give her an incredible insight into the issues facing Europe, her allies and the importance of NATO to serve in opposition to Russian aggression.

Go here to see the original:
Hutchison's NATO appointment puts her in a whole new world - mySanAntonio.com

The implications of this mean that the cyberattack could be interpreted as an act of war, according to the organization. On Wednesday, NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg said a cyber attack could trigger Article 5, the principal of collective defense.

"As important government systems have been targeted, then in case the operation is attributed to a state this could count as a violation of sovereignty. Consequently, this could be an internationally wrongful act, which might give the targeted states several options to respond with countermeasures," Tom Minrik, researcher at NATO's CCD COE law branch, in the press release.

NATO investigators added that the cyberattack was a "declaration of power" and a demonstration of the culprit's ability to cause disruption.

More than 30 percent of affected firms were financials, according to analysis by Kaspersky Lab, while at least half of those targeted were industrial organizations, such as utilities, oil and gas, transportation, logistics, manufacturing and other companies.

"The nature of this malware is such that it could easily stop the operation of a production facility for a considerable amount of time", said Kirill Kruglov, security expert at Kaspersky Lab, in a press release published Thursday.

See original here:
NATO says a 'state actor' was behind the massive ransomware attack and could trigger military response - CNBC