Relations between NATO and Turkey have been strained since the country in 2017, purchased a Russian made S-400 missle defence system. Described as a "Russian intelligence collection platform", US defence officials feared, the missle deal could lead to data leaks and security issues within the NATO alliance.

After the purchase agreement was signed between Ankara and Moscow, Turkey was subsequently "kicked out" of a half a billion dollar deal with the Americans to obtain the stealthy F-35 fighter jets, in an apparent retaliatory move by Washington.

There's still ongoing talks about purchasing new F-16s fighter jets. But members of Congress oppose the sale.

Some U.S. lawmakers have spoken of imposing sanctions on Ankara for favoring the Russians. Recently in a letter to U.S. Secretary of State members of Congress invoked the Countering American Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).

• Read more: Post-COVID-19 Economic Complications

With NATO's largest standing army,  the country remains a formidable military power. It has flexed its military muscles in Northern Cyprus in the past, and more recently in Syria and Libya. The Caucasus aren't off limits either. Ankara has played a decisive role in the decades old Nargorno Karabakh territorial conflict . Not surprisingly due to historical enmity towards the Armenians, it sided with the Azeris.

Backroom rumblings and news reports, revealed Turkey was covertly sending troops to the contested Nagarno Karabakh region between the two adversaries during the short lived July, 2020 war. Why all the international interventionism? President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been obsessed with transforming his country into a regional superpower. This has unnerved some U.S. allies and "client states" such a Greece and Israel, drawing the two closer together in "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" geopolitical realignement.

Turkey has also unsettled its NATO partners by forming closer energy, military and strategic alliances with Russia in the Black Sea area. Ankara has even courted Iran. All this is most irksome in both Brussels and Washington.

• Read more: Quantum Race

The End of the Erdogan Era?

"I cannot say there is a healthy process in Turkish-American relations" said the Turkish president last September, as the F-16 fighter jet sale floundered. Relations between both allies were furthered strained when last month when U.S. and other western diplomats in Turkey called for the release of Osman Kavala, a businessman and philanthropist jailed since 2017.

On what basis? Most likely he was seen by Erdogan as a potential political rival. The diplomats' demand was met with ire. The Turkish president designated them "persona non grata" and threatened them with expulsion. He later backed down.

Was some arm twisting by Washington a factor in his decision?

After all stirring up the diplomatic pot would only further damage Turkey's relations within NATO. Or worse scuttle any chance of the still pending F-16s deal, held up in Congress. Aside from these tiffs, most worrisome of all, is who will lead Turkey in the near future?

Rumors abound about the Turkish leaders declining health. If "Sultan Erdogan" as some refer to his autocratic nature, leaves the scene before the 2023 Turkish elections, a dangerous power vacuum might emerge. Turkey's restless military commanders, itching for revenge (many jailed after failed 2016 coup), may be tempted to step in and fill that gaping political void.

A possible military coup in one of its key, if somewhat duplicitous NATO allies, would further strain the shaky alliance. NATO already reeling from the debacle in Afghanistan, is in no mood for more trouble with Turkey. Only Russia would benefit from such a scenario.

Author:

Michael Werbowski is a Vienna-based reporter, heritage activist and political campaign organizer who specializes in international geopolitical issues. He graduated from the University of Leeds, U.K., and wrote his MA dissertation in post-communist studies on the topic of E.U. enlargement to the nations of “new” central Europe. He did his BA studies at the faculty of Political Science and Law (University of Nantes, France) and later spent a year as an “etudiant libre” attending classes at the Institut d’ Etudes Politiques de Paris. In 1992, he took summer courses in American foreign policy and advanced journalism at Harvard University. In 1993, he ran for parliament in the Canadian federal elections. He is a Salzburg Global Seminar fellow from 1996 and was awarded a Wolfson college Cambridge media fellowship in 2004. From 1994 until 2000 he resided in Prague as a reporter for the local press. From 2000 until 2003 he worked in Mexico city as a correspondent for the Czech daily Lidove Noviny while collaborating with the Mexican media.

In 2005, he lectured in Prague’s Anglo American college on corporate ethics and media coverage. As a reporter he covered and commented on issues related to E.U. and NATO enlargement for the prominent Czech daily Lidove Noviny and the Prague Post. He has written news and commentary for newspapers such the Mexican daily Excelsior and Tiempos del Mundo in Mexico City. For his environmental coverage of the Chalillo dam controversy in Belize he was awarded an honorable mention for best reporting in 2003 by the Mexican journalists’ club.

Mr. Werbowski’s articles have been translated from English into Spanish and French in magazines, newspapers and websites world wide. Most recently he was business editor at the English daily The News in Mexico city. He is currently working on and researching a book on former U.S. foreign policy adviser to President Jimmy Carter (1977-81) Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski. He has worked with several NGOs and international organizations over the years (most recently assistant to an E.U.-member state OSCE delegation in Vienna).

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

photo: WIKI COMMONS

Quantum computers employ the unique properties of atoms and photons to solve computational problems considerably faster than ordinary computers. On the one hand, their availability will enable breakthroughs in many disciplines, from medicine to space exploration or artificial intelligence. On the other hand, their ubiquity will certainly pose challenges to the economy and national security.

In a race whose finish line is the development and implementation of practical applications of quantum computers, the winner will have a tremendous strategic advantage. Whoever wins the technological competition of the future will become a global economic leader. That's why it's hard not to agree with the words of a New York Senator Chuck Schumer, who, while opting for a US bill guaranteeing government investment in the new technology sector, said: "We need to invest in science, research and development, manufacturing and innovation. (…) In the midst of one of the most consequential battles in our nation’s history, the US Innovation and Competition Act lays the foundation for the next century of American economic leadership and preserves our competitive edge for generations to come."[1]

• Read more: Post-COVID-19 Economic Complications

In 2021, global investment in quantum research and technology exceeded a total of more than $25 billion. It is not an astronomical amount, especially since it accounts for the sum of investments both planned and carried out throughout the last decade. However, considering the very narrow field, which recently was of interest only to theoreticians, it is a significant amount. The funds invested in research lead not only to the development of theoretical research, but also to the implementation of innovations that continually expand the availability of technology not long ago reserved for scientists.

Quantum computers are based on a very different model than the standard electronics we use every day. In classical physics, an object exists in a certain state. In a laptop, on our desk, information always consists of a certain number of zeros or ones. Both the files stored on the hard drive and the text of this article stored in the cache are based on the binary system. In the world of quantum mechanics, objects appear in a precisely defined state only after they are observed. Before that, the state can only be determined using probability. The computational capabilities of a quantum computer are based on non-binary qubits of information, reflecting the indeterminacy of states in the quantum world. It is this indeterminacy that can enable faster and cheaper computations. It sounds complicated, and it is. Besides, as Princeton University Professor John Wheeler used to say, "If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it." In the future, the end user of a quantum computer will not have to worry about the complexity of the process. Just as today, he or she doesn't need to understand how a silicon monocrystal enables zero-one signal processing in a standard computer.

Until recently, American corporations have led the way in quantum investment. In September 2019, Google announced it had achieved "supremacy in the field" by showing off its 53-cubit machine. In the last quarter of 2020, IBM surpassed its competitor by announcing to the world that it has a 65-cubit machine. Earlier, US-based IBM introduced the IBM Q System One device for sale. It is the first commercial quantum computer built on a 20-cubit chip. The computer placed in a housing made of laminated borosilicate glass, providing adequate insulation against environmental factors, does not resemble standard computing units[2]. The machine occupies an area of over 7 sqm and is 2.7 m high. A few months ago, the first unit of this type was installed in Europe. The ongoing efforts of the German Fraunhofer Institute since 2019 have resulted in the launch of the first ever quantum computer in Europe. The computer operates in the institute's laboratory in Ehningen, 600 kilometers from the Polish border, and is part of an academic network used by researchers across Europe. "The target is to accelerate research related to drugs, vaccines, climate models and even the transport system. The investment is expected to support not only science but also the economy."[3]

• Read more: The United States and Sweden During the Cold War: Part 3

This is not the only investment of this kind in Europe. Since 2018, the EU has been implementing the Quantum Flagship program, which with a budget of €1 billion seeks to enable the EU to compete in the coming revolution. Germany has announced a €2 billion post-pandemic support fund for research on technologies related to modern computers. France is taking the same action. In January 2021, President Emmanuel Macron declared an investment of just under EUR 2 billion that France will undertake by 2026 to ensure the development of quantum technologies[4]. In Poland, scientists from Toruń and Gdańsk, among others, are working on applications for these technologies. Researchers from Warsaw cooperate with EXATEL, a national telecommunication operator providing services to the largest organizations in the public sector. Little by little, the private sector is also developing, where talented scientists try to compete for a share in the race. An example is the Creotech company based near Warsaw, which with a budget of PLN 7 million intends to develop modern solutions applied in the control systems of quantum computers. According to the company, "The result will be the first in Poland and one of the first in the world modular electronic devices based on technical parameters agreed upon by leading research groups from the USA and the EU.”

The biggest rival of the USA in the field of quantum computers is China. It is in the Middle Kingdom that investment in the development of this branch of technology is currently the highest. In the current Chinese five-year plan, this field is listed as one of the key points of development and international rivalry. In late October, Chinese physicists announced that they had built two state-of-the-art computers with computing capabilities that surpass those of Western competitors. According to the research team, the photon-based Jiuzhang 2 can solve a task in one millisecond that would take the fastest conventional computer trillions of years[6]. Investment in such technologies, spurred by Beijing, is totaling $10 billion more than the US and Europe[7]. They are scheduled to grow by an additional 7% each year for the next five years.

The race is on. Not only rewards for scientists and national economies await at the finish line. A huge opportunity for military advantage also awaits. A quantum computer can potentially allow to break all ciphers that are currently considered secure. The ability to break cryptographic security will threaten the infrastructure of any country. Scientists are aware of this and have been working for some time on cryptography solutions that will ensure secure communication in the new realities. To implement such security features, it will of course be necessary to have access to a quantum computer.

Author:

Wiktor Sędkowski graduated in Teleinformatics at the Wrocław University of Science and Technology, specialized in cybersecurity field. He is an expert on cyber threats. CISSP, OSCP and MCTS certificates holder. Worked as an engineer and solution architect for leading IT companies.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

[1]https://www.schumer.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/schumer-announces-senate-passage-of-us-innovation-and-competition-act-250-billion-bipartisan-bill-will-be-blueprint-to-make-ny-global-tech-and-semiconductor-hub-schumers-bill-includes-52b-for-us-semiconductor-industry_10b-for-regional-tech-hubs-to-create-jobs-in-upstate-ny–put-ny-on-the-frontlines-of-the-greatest-race-of-the-century

[2]https://www.themanufacturer.com/articles/ibm-unveil-new-commercial-q-system-one-quantum-computer/

[3]https://www.benchmark.pl/aktualnosci/ibm-quantum-system-one-uruchomiono-pierwszy-komputer-kwantowy-w.html

[4]https://www.businessfrance.fr/discover-france-news-1-8-billion-in-funding-for-quantum-technologies

[5]https://www.fxmag.pl/artykul/firma-creotech-instruments-pozyskala-ponad-5-mln-zl-dofinansowania-z-ncbr-na-stworzenie-nowoczesnych-rozwiazan-w-segmencie-technologii-kwantowych

[6]https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3153727/china-launches-worlds-fastest-programmable-quantum-computers

[7]https://www.qureca.com/overview-on-quantum-initiatives-worldwide-update-mid-2021/

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic left a huge mark on the world's economies. It seems that since then, the situation has settled down. Since the second half of last year, the world has been trying to return to normalcy. It turns out, however, that in many respects, it will not be the same as before for a long time to come. [EO[I1] 

Global economies have been suffering from a number of coronavirus-related complications lately, and it doesn't look like it's going to end anytime soon. These complications are reverberating across many economic levels, making it extremely difficult for global markets to return to pre-lockdown levels. There are unprecedented problems in individual sectors and it is not entirely clear how to tackle them.

The pandemic led to turmoil on many fronts. One of them was the disruption of supply chains. In 2020, the global economy went dormant for a time, with production and trade declining or even freezing in many industries. The lockdown caused factories to close, which blocked much of the supply in global transportation.

• Read more: The United States and Sweden During the Cold War: Part 3

When the strictest restrictions were lifted, economies rebounded and businesses reopened. Countries began to push for economic recovery to avoid stagnation and avert a crisis. This caused a surge in demand for imported goods.

As a result, ports around the world are overloaded, and delays in the past two months have reached unprecedented levels, breaking new records. Stacks of unclaimed containers are piling up at US, Asian and European terminals, and dozens of ships are anchored in bays, waiting to deposit goods.

Putting aside the pandemic in general, there are many other reasons for such a state of affairs. These include, among others, the aforementioned shifts in demand for consumer goods caused by the COVID-19, and the consequent disruptions in transport and container ship routes. These are primarily caused by the temporary closure of major ports during the pandemic. Ships were unable to be serviced for a period of time, only to then catch up with the backlog accumulated during that period. In August, for example, just one case of coronavirus paralyzed the terminal at China's main port of Ningbo near Shanghai for two weeks. As a result, huge queues of vessels waiting to be loaded soon ensued, crippling the port's operations. There were many more such instances. When delayed ships arrived at unloading ports over time, they queued outside the schedule, causing a domino effect and further delays. Additionally, with the pandemic came restrictions in the form of social distancing and mandatory quarantine of workers, which only exacerbated the problem. At the same time, maritime transport is also facing more "typical" complications, such as storms or the famous blockage of the Suez Canal by Evergreen's container ship, effectively interfering with the already disrupted delivery schedule at ports. Another problem is the shortage of port workers and, perhaps most importantly, truck drivers. It turns out that once ships have deposited their goods, there is no one to pick them up. These shortages have caused huge hindrances to port operations in the US and the UK, among others. As a result, the capacity of the world's ports is far from sufficient and the queues are growing.

• Read more: Illegal Migration: A New Weapon?

This has a direct impact on the increasing delays in the delivery of goods, resulting in product shortages, which has been reported recently for example in the context of the UK. Transport costs have also increased significantly. For example, the average global shipping price for a 40-foot container is now close to $10,000, which is three times higher than it was at the beginning of 2021 and almost ten times higher than it was in the pre-pandemic period. The large-scale consequence is a significant reduction in the profitability of some businesses, progressive inflation, and shortages of goods in many global economies.

A real impact that will be felt by the public in the near future will be unfulfilled orders for the upcoming Christmas season. Experts predict that this crisis will not only fail to end in the near future, but will continue to worsen. The problem is so serious that the US President Joe Biden himself has been pushing rail and trucking companies and ports to increase their capacity, including calling on the Port of Los Angeles to work around the clock.

Another key segment of the economy was also affected by the turmoil in global demand. The large-scale shift of many workers to telecommuting, caused by the pandemic, resulted in increased demand for necessary equipment such as laptops and webcams. In contrast, other industries, especially the automotive sector, saw a significant drop in demand. As a result, a considerable portion of computer chip orders was redirected to the electronics industry. When demand for cars increased substantially after the pandemic, chips became scarce. Consequently, production had to be curtailed or halted, resulting in some plant closures and delayed deliveries, reducing the supply of new cars by more than 7 million. The reduced supply and increased demand lead directly to unprecedented price increases in this sector of the economy.

The aforementioned problems in the automotive industry caused by the semiconductor crisis, which is forcing virtually all automakers to curtail production or temporarily close assembly lines, could be enough to trigger a recession in some countries. In Japan, the home of Toyota and Nissan, parts shortages caused exports to drop by 46 percent in September compared to the previous year, which is sure to take a toll on the capabilities of the Japanese economy. With the crisis affecting the US automotive industry, the Biden administration forced Congress to pass a bill called CHIPS for America, which would encourage increased semiconductor manufacturing and research in the United States with $52 billion in funding.

Nevertheless, problems also affect other industries and sectors of the economy. The described issues, together with the energy crisis, which will be aggravated by the approaching winter, have and will have a huge impact on the coming years, both in the economic and political context. This leads to changes in the balance of power and the rise or fall of states on the international stage. Like the COVID-19 itself, the aforementioned multifaceted turmoil in global economies may also remain with us in the near future. Those countries that smoothly find their way in the new reality and are best able to cope with rising inflation and the coming recession will be the ones to play the leading role on the international political stage in the future.

Author:

Jakub Łyjak graduated from law at the University of Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań and economics at the Poznań University of Economics. He also studied Business Administration (Betriebswirtschaftslehre) at the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität in Münster. He gained professional experience in the field of law and non-governmental organizations, including Polish Entrepreneurship and Leadership Association and Center for American Studies.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

Stockholm’s policy after World War II was characterized by flexibility and balance, which was typical for the Swedish diplomacy, at least until the end of Tage Erlander’s tenure as Prime Minister. Sweden continually feared becoming embroiled in a major conflict between superpowers that would do the country no good, but pose a major threat. Then, it was the main reason for the policy of keeping a distance between Sweden and the two political blocs.

Despite its cautious policy, Stockholm did not avoid diplomatic mistakes. Stig Wennerström, a Swedish Air Force officer, accused of spying for the Soviets, was arrested in 1963. The scandal reverberated not only in Sweden but also throughout the Western world, severely shaking up the political scene in the Scandinavian country. It highlighted the lack of government coordination in certain domains since, as it turned out, SÄPO[1] had long been suspicious of Wennerström. Both the Minister of Foreign Affairs Östen Undén and Defense Minister Sven Andersson knew about the case, but neither of them informed Prime Minister Erlander.

• Read also: U.S. and Sweden in Cold War Era

As a result of Wennerström’s interrogations, it became clear that this officer had been passing information to the Soviets for years, concerning, for instance, the Swedish Air Force strategy, mobilization plans, and secret military bases. Naturally, this led to distrust from NATO member states.

Détente, Palme, and Swedish activism

With the advent of détente in the late 1960s as well as the reduced pressure from the Western countries and the Soviet Union, Sweden had to adjust to a new political situation. It was decided that Sweden would be more active internationally, as exemplified by the “Undén Proposal.” It marked the beginning of the process of establishing Sweden as one of the main actors in disarmament policy. The government in Stockholm sought to become the leader of neutral states. Sweden’s main ambition was to play an active role in multilateral relations among countries by supporting other neutral and newly emerged states as well as acting as a mediator in conflicts.

The development of soft power, supported by the creation of a vision of a peaceful order and international security, has also been extremely important. Precisely because of this increased activity, Sweden has been criticized. Moreover, its actions were not recognized as “in line” with the neutral status. Nevertheless, the final document of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), held in Helsinki in 1975, officially recognized the right of every state to neutrality. This was achieved, among others, thanks to the efforts of the Swedish diplomacy, which consistently affirmed its new, active role in international relations.

With the development of its active foreign policy, Stockholm became increasingly involved in international conflicts. The high point was reached during the term of Olof Palme[2]. He was known for his harsh criticism against the US, the USSR, right-wing dictatorships in Latin America, and countries that violated human rights. The politician was popular due to his sympathies towards socialist countries, however, he did not admire the Soviet Union nor its satellite states. He was one of those who criticized the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Afghanistan in 1979, yet he supported North Vietnam in its struggle against the US. Moreover, he backed the Palestinian side during the conflict with Israel, which further aggravated Swedish relations with the United States.

The US-Soviet dialogue, initiated in the late 1960s, resulted in the signing of arms control treaties, including SALT I and SALT II. Additionally, the Ostpolitik, led by Willy Brandt’s West German government, led to an improvement in relations of the West with the USSR and the Polish People’s Republic. Despite the oil crisis and still considerable distrust concerning arms limitation (establishment of Soviet bases on the Kola Peninsula), the international situation seemed relatively stable. All disarmament, peacemaking, and human rights mediation activities were supported by Sweden, which constituted a perfect field for diplomatic maneuvering.

As a result of losing the 1976 elections, Olof Palme stepped down as the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, he did not stop his activity in the international arena. In 1980, he became a UN mediator in the Iraq-Iran war and headed the so-called Palmekommissionen. A year earlier, NATO had installed air-defense systems in Western Europe, giving the US and the Alliance a strategic advantage. The USSR was put in a position where it could expect a nuclear attack both from across the Atlantic and from Europe. The clear tension and fear of a nuclear war returned, something that Palme had firmly warned against. A series of diplomatic ploys and mutual accusations began. The election of Reagan as US President in 1981 and his policy towards the USSR sealed the “return” of the Cold War.

• Read also: The United States and Sweden during the Cold War: Part 2

The great return

In 1982, Olof Palme became Prime Minister yet again. In the same year, he introduced the initiative to create a UN Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues. This idea promoted the establishment of nuclear-free zones in Central and Northern Europe. It met with harsh criticism from NATO strategists and planners as well as military commanders in Sweden. On the other hand, the Soviets showed a positive attitude towards the “joint security” policy. This was primarily due to the vision of regaining strategic balance at little cost. Palme’s lenient attitude towards Moscow’s decision makers was surprising, especially in view of a number of incidents involving Soviet submarines, the frequency of which increased in the early 1980s. The lack of a firm response from the Swedish Prime Minister also gave rise to criticism from President Reagan.

During his second term, Olof Palme continued the policy of developing an international disarmament agenda. In 1984, together with the leaders of several other countries, he formed the Six Nation Five Continent Peace Initiative. It aimed at emphasizing that countries without nuclear capabilities must be heard in the context of the use of such weapons, which was also pointed out in the Delhi Declaration, the foundational document of the Initiative. Palme repeatedly indicated that the subject of nuclear weapons concerns every country in the world since every country would be affected by their use.

It was sought to force an end to nuclear testing and further development of this capability. This directly threatened the whole of Europe, which Palme called a “perfectly prepared battlefield.” This, along with the fight against apartheid, constituted the majority of the Swedish Prime Minister’s foreign policy in the last years of his life. Sweden’s influence in Africa was evident, above all in Tanzania and South Africa, where Palme supported the efforts to free Nelson Mandela. In addition, Sweden was an active member of the Non-Aligned Movement and its activities in this field were also noticeable in the 1980s.

On February 28, 1986, the successful assassination of Olof Palme ended a certain era in Swedish history. The greatest accomplishment in Stockholm’s foreign policy of this period was first and foremost the shift from the political withdrawal to active diplomacy and, most importantly, to pragmatic diplomacy, yet no longer so subdued, or even an aggressive one. Palme, who was an excellent orator, did not hesitate to use strong words, regardless of the political size of his opponent. Sweden suffered as a result of it – its diplomatic relations with some countries were suspended several times, for instance with the United States. However, the new way of conducting foreign policy, developed during his rule, is still noticeable in Swedish diplomacy today.

author:

Adrian Kolano 

Editorial director of the European Foreign Affairs. Graduate of history at the University of Rzeszów and international relations at the University of Warsaw. Scholarship holder at the University of Lund. He is interested in current political affairs in Sweden as well as the security and history of the region.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

The Internet plays a significant role on the geopolitical board. The intelligence services of conflicting countries carry out cyber espionage operations and precisely targeted disinformation attacks. Hackers paid by governments gain access to the systems of their enemies, and sometimes even their allies, in order to get political advantage.

In the past, in terms of espionage, diversionary, or even disinformation operations, finding the perpetrator usually equated to identifying the party responsible for such actions. Today, in the era of digital and remote cyberattacks, this is not an easy task. Attribution, or the assignment of responsibility, especially in the case of interstate relations, is a highly sensitive topic. In the context of decentralized aggressors, VPNs, Tor networks, botnets, anonymization techniques, alliances, cyber mercenaries, and false flag operations, the attribution of a remote attack with 100% certainty is, technically, incredibly difficult, yet still possible.

The attribution process, which is decidedly technical, also includes political and economic aspects. The technical part focuses on the direct evidences of cyberattacks, known as digital footprints, which include connection sources, logs, a review of the malicious code used during the attack, and much more. Analysts meticulously examine the code and software modules used in the attack. They look for known signatures and potential traces left by the authors. Network activity logs from the time of the incident, language artifacts of the software, emails, or other components used during the attack are also checked. Moreover, experts examine the security vulnerabilities used by the malware and how it entered the victim’s system. Additionally, they attempt to find out what the intruder was looking for and what was the purpose of the attack. The latter often requires economic and even geopolitical analysis. The less technical part of the analysts’ work can be compared to that of criminal investigators who use the MMO method in their search for suspects.

• Read also: U.S. and Sweden in Cold War Era

The MMO method is based on identifying who had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit a crime. This makes it possible to narrow down the list of suspects and sometimes even readily identify who committed the crime. In the case of cyberattacks, particularly the geopolitically inspired ones, the question concerning the attribution changes from “who did it?” to “who is to blame?” Correct attribution helps to begin the process of seeking compensation or criminal prosecution that will bring the guilty to justice, should the legislature of the attacked country be powerful enough. Attribution is highly important also in terms of defense. Assigning responsibility for an international cyberattack to specific individuals, and more importantly – identifying its ordering party, has great deterrence potential.

In recent years, we could observe that the US and its international partners were correctly identifying the perpetrators of a series of cyberattacks. In Poland, the intelligence services responsible for analyzing the recent cases of compromised emails of politicians and the attack on the website of the War Studies Academy have also identified those responsible. The most spectacular example illustrating the complex work and the use of advanced attribution techniques was the identification of those responsible for attacks on critical infrastructure, including the systems of the Westinghouse Electric Company and the US Steel Corporation, by US federal government agencies. As a result of the investigation, five soldiers from the China’s People’s Liberation Army, Unit 61398, were charged with hacking.

• Read also: Nord Stream 2 Divides Europe

The first attribution is not always accurate. In 2019 and 2020, hackers broke into the computers of the Israeli government and technology companies. The initially gathered evidence pointed directly to Iran, Israel’s biggest political enemy. The cybercriminals used tools typically used by Iranian hackers. Language artifacts evidencing that the authors of the attack used Farsi were also found.

Hackers have successfully attacked the Israeli government as well as technology and telecommunications companies. What is more, they have successfully concealed their identities, leaving behind traces that mislead analysts. A recent report by FireEye, a company which yet again reviewed the data from the hacks on Israeli entities in cooperation with Israeli military agencies, have identified a new culprit. The analysis found that at the time the UNC215 group, linked to the Chinese government, used identical techniques, particularly ones making attribution difficult. Currently, the analysts of the FireEye do not have sufficient information to accurately classify the group or directly identify its members. Instead, they are certain that the UNC215 group is linked to the Chinese government and is active in the region. In line with the above, Iran was not responsible for the 2019 and 2020 attacks.

In cybersecurity, requiring a proof beyond a reasonable doubt should be mandatory. Of course, it is not always possible to gather sufficient evidence or achieve complete certainty of its authenticity. An additional problem is also the political interest of states, as a result of which the conflicted countries are eager to attribute responsibility for cyber incidents to each other.

author: 

Wiktor Sędkowski graduated in Teleinformatics at the Wrocław University of Science and Technology, specialized in cybersecurity field. He is an expert on cyber threats. CISSP, OSCP and MCTS certificates holder. Worked as an engineer and solution architect for leading IT companies.

This article was written as part of the statutory activities of the Polish think tank Warsaw Institute. If you appreciate the content prepared by our partner, we appeal to you for financial support for this non-profit organisation.

More information:
www.warsawinstitute.org/support/

sponsored article

The UK gave the world the industrial revolution and exported the capitalist model that’s used in almost every country. It was once described as a “nation of shopkeepers”, a term intended as an insult but one very much embraced by the entrepreneurial Brits.

An ingenious bunch, Britons have invented all sorts of things that we take for granted today. Sir Tim Berners-Lee is credited with developing the World Wide Web that has completely revolutionised our lives. Before that, Peter Durand invented the tin can as a way to preserve food, while Sir James Dewar developed the vacuum that we use to keep our hot drinks warm while it’s cold outside. 

The hovercraft, jet engine, steam train, chocolate bar, fire extinguisher, Catseye, and ATM also all came from the UK too. These inventions and the huge financial industry that developed within the City of London all helped to make Britain one of the best places to invest and do business. 

For centuries, Poles have seen this and come to the UK to both benefit from and contribute to this entrepreneurial society. This collaboration continues today, with initiatives between the governments of the two countries hosting joint events to promote trade partnerships. 

But in 2021 and beyond, is the UK still an attractive prospect?

Growth Sectors

All this stability doesn’t mean the UK market is slow and boring. There are still a lot of exciting things going on in the British economy as its stability and business-friendly regulatory environment make it a favourable place to found a startup. 

Over the last few decades, the UK has become home to many of the world’s biggest iGaming companies who have developed online casino games and other betting products for both the domestic and international markets. Strong competition in the market has kept these companies on their toes, leading them to create a huge array of new and exclusive titles like 3 Witches, The Bird House, and Blitz Joker to keep their offerings fresh. 

Other industries that have thrived in the UK in recent years have included fintech, with brands like Curve, Chip, Starling, and Moneybox all basing themselves in and around the British capital; audiobook publishing; and food delivery platforms. 

Stability

Investing is not a one-size-fits-all process. Some investors want huge returns, so to achieve that, they’re happy to accept larger risks to their capital. Others are more conservative and prefer their capital be preserved (or at least exposed to fewer risks) and are, therefore, happy to accept lower returns to get that. 

The United Kingdom is one of the oldest and most regulatory stable countries in the world. The Acts of Union came into force in 1707 and the country has existed in its current form since 1922 after what is now the Republic of Ireland was ceded. 

The country’s stock market, the London Stock Exchange, and the bluechip index, the FTSE 100 contain some of the world’s oldest companies including Royal Mail, Marks & Spencer, and Barclays. Regulations also don’t change quickly in the UK. Although new laws are passed each year, entire industries won’t be outlawed overnight like they are in some other countries. 

For investors looking for stability, these factors still make the UK an attractive proposition. 

Future Prospects

In the last couple of weeks, the British government has announced plans to improve the country’s environmental position. One of these will see homeowners encouraged to install heat pumps to replace gas boilers, with £5,000 grants to sweeten the deal. 

The green industries are likely to become big business in the UK as the need to stem climate change becomes even more urgent. This could be one of the many areas where investing in Blighty may be an attractive prospect for those that want a balance between stability and growth. 

And although the regulatory framework that governs the UK is currently more likely to change in the near future than at any time in recent history, on balance, Britain is still a great place to do business. 

In the Cold War period, Sweden had de facto three foreign policy choices. First, to yet again attempt to cooperate with the other Scandinavian states more closely. Second, to join NATO, which would be a rather sudden move. Third, to continue the policy of non-alignment, the effectiveness of which was contingent upon the decisions of the two dominant superpowers.

Between East and West

Talks on the establishment of a political-military cooperation among Oslo, Copenhagen, and Stockholm – a Scandinavian defensive union to be specific – ended in 1949, almost as quickly as they had begun.[i] There were several reasons for this, the most important being geographic location, bilateral relations with countries other than the Nordic ones, and a different approach to security policy. Denmark and Norway sought close cooperation with the then planned North Atlantic Alliance. However, this was not in line with the standpoint of Stockholm, which did not want to irritate Stalin.

Read also: U.S.-Poland Nuclear Cooperation

In Swedish military circles, a popular solution for implementing security policy was that Sweden would join NATO. However, the political elite was against this idea and no politician was officially in favor of joining the Alliance. Nevertheless, political and military partnership with the West was not ruled out.[ii]

The greatest advocate of the Swedish policy of non-alignment, and its main proponent after World War II, was the Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs Östen Undén. A policy of non-alignment offered the best chance of maintaining neutrality in the event of war. In addition, it was already a proven way of conducting foreign policy that promoted the country’s economic growth and provided ample opportunities for cooperation with other countries.

In 1946, Tage Erlander became the Prime Minister of Sweden. Together with Minister Undén, they began to strengthen political and economic ties with the West. Sweden’s status as one of the founding states of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation, which also involved joining the Marshall Plan, can serve as an example of how the goals of Erlander and Undén were realized. The Swedish government was balancing between Moscow and Washington, simultaneously trying to get closer to the US without irritating the Soviet Union. The Swedish Defense Staff coordinated military cooperation with its American and British counterparts.[iii] Initially, the West knew even the Swedish defense plan. Intelligence cooperation was likewise continued.

However, Swedish operations were conducted through individual contacts with NATO members, not directly with the Alliance as a body.

In 1948, the United States became strongly against arms exports to neutral states. Britain’s policy was quite different. By exporting arms to Sweden, London not only moved closer to Stockholm economically and politically, but also strengthened a potential ally.[iv] In 1951, British Secretary of State for Air Arthur Henderson arrived for talks with the government in Stockholm. The visit was intended not only to dispel doubts about the recent economic issues, but, more importantly, to make the Swedish government fully aware that without accurate plans for Swedish defense, the West would not be able to help it in the event of war. A few months after Henderson’s visit, Swedish Defense Minister Allan Vougt sent a memorandum containing war plans, organization, strength, and general data on the Swedish Armed Forces to London.[v]

• Read also: U.S. and Sweden in Cold War Era: Part 1

The talks between Sweden and Britain did not escape Moscow’s attention. The USSR was aware that Swedish neutrality would by no means mean impartiality. Yet, it was important that Stockholm’s policy of non-alignment would last as long as possible. Stockholm, not wanting to further deteriorate relations with the USSR, decided to postpone bilateral talks with the British. The British government did not share the information acquired from the Swedes with the Americans. It is true that the Eisenhower administration was informed about some behind-the-scenes discussions with Stockholm, but for that moment they had to have such character and the US President agreed to it. As an experienced military man, Eisenhower knew how Sweden’s geopolitical position was important to NATO.[vi] In turn, Erlander feared that a significant political and military rapprochement with London would undermine the credibility of Sweden’s policy of neutrality and leave no other option but to engage, and perhaps even join NATO.

Late 1951 saw a breakthrough in the protracted negotiations over Swedish participation in the COCOM embargo on strategic goods and cutting-edge technology for the Eastern bloc, led by the US.[vii] As a result of the agreement reached at that time, the US policy toward Sweden changed. The importance of Sweden’s potential membership in NATO was still acknowledged, but the Swedish policy of avoiding military alliances was accepted.

Nuclear umbrella

After Stalin’s death in 1953, there was a thaw in international relations, and the postwar political tension was no longer so noticeable. By the mid-1950s, Moscow recognized Swedish neutrality and Nordic cooperation (the Nordic Council). Moreover, pressure from NATO member states for close military cooperation with Sweden diminished. They have also decided to respect the policy of non-alignment. At the same time, they left the door open for Sweden’s future accession to the Alliance, stressing that a battle for Denmark would also be a battle for Sweden.

The main role in the defense of Zealand and NATO’s northern flank was assigned to West Germany. Nevertheless, the US interest in Sweden and defending Scandinavia was becoming more and more apparent. The long-term commitment of the United States was reflected in the 1960 Report of the US National Security Council (NSC 6006/1).[viii] This statement was favorable for Sweden, as it could still pursue its policy knowing that it would be protected by the US.

In the late 1960s, the Swedish Social Democrats abandoned the idea of obtaining nuclear weapons, nonetheless, this issue was not fully resolved. The government assumed that if it had American protection, the US nuclear umbrella would also shield their country.[ix] Sweden’s Minister of Foreign Affairs announced the “Undén Proposal,” in which he argued that states without nuclear capabilities should announce the abandonment of plans to manufacture, store, and acquire nuclear weapons in any way. This proposal was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, as a United Nations resolution. The emphasis was still on the deterrence and the promotion of peace, but it was the notion of “marginal deterrence” that slowly gained more and more advocates.

The continuous rule of the Social Democrats ensured political balance in Stockholm. Nevertheless, the direction of Swedish politics had been changing as a result of ongoing events. There was no clear and long-term unity in this regard until the late 1960s. This was meant to change thanks to a young but long-time collaborator of Tage Erlander. A disciple of Swedish neutrality policy who put it on a more active track. His name was Sven Olof Joachim Palme.

Author:

Adrian Kolano 

Editorial director of the European Foreign Affairs. Graduate of history at the University of Rzeszów and international relations at the University of Warsaw. Scholarship holder at the University of Lund. He is interested in current political affairs in Sweden as well as the security and history of the region.