On February 13, Donald Trump became the only US President in history to be impeached twice. However, no precedent was established – the former US president was acquitted. This article will answer the following questions: what is impeachment, what is its genesis, which presidents have been impeached in the past, and what led to the second impeachment.

Impeachment originates from Anglo-Saxon law and is an act of arraigning a public official. When such a person commits a serious crime, the House votes upon impeachment and, if the motion is passed by a simple majority, the trial begins. Simply implementing impeachment proceedings does not mean that the president would be removed from office. Importantly, it is a political, not a criminal trial. This means that as a result of an impeachment, a president could be removed from office, but could not be send to prison. The Senate conducts an investigation and then a vote on whether to find the president or another official guilty or not of the alleged crimes. This requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Currently, it translates to 67 senators assuming that all 100 of them are present and voting.

• Read also: A Hero to Poles and Americans Alike

The history of impeachment can be dated back to 14^th century England, when parliament attempted to hold royal advisors accountable. Later, the idea was revisited in the 17^th century due to corruption and scandalous behavior of the members of the court of Charles I of England. Towards the end of the 18^th century, both England and the United States closely followed the trial of Warren Hastings, an official, taking place London. At the time, the founding fathers were creating the American Constitution. Consequently, impeachment was incorporated into the US legal system as a tool designed to control corrupt officials.

The first president to be impeached was Andrew Johnson in 1868, three years after he took office. Significantly, his term began after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. The difficult social situation after the recent Civil War as well as the differences of opinion between the president, a Democrat, and the Republican majority, led to the president’s impeachment following numerous disputes. After a two-month trial, a vote was taken. In the end, Johnson was acquitted by one vote.

Other trials took place in the 20^th century and mostly concerned judges. It was not until 1974 that another US President – Richard Nixon – faced impeachment in the aftermath of the Watergate affair. However, the Republican forestalled the Senate and resigned before the procedure was initiated.

The third case concerned Bill Clinton in 1998. The allegations included a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Paula Jones and Clinton’s testimony in which he denied that he had engaged in sexual relations with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. It was proven that the President had lied under oath, and, as a result, an impeachment trial began. However, he was not convicted as the motion had been 22 votes short of the two-thirds majority.

Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial took place in late 2019. The upcoming presidential election and the related election campaign served as its background. Joe Biden, former vice president under Barack Obama, was said to be the strongest Democratic candidate, likely to win the upcoming presidential race, as early as in mid-2019. To weaken the opponent’s position, Donald Trump referred to the unclear circumstances of Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, appointment to the board of Burisma Holdings, a gas company operating in Ukraine. The controversial and vague details served as the basis for public accusations concerning the Democrat and his ties to corruption in Ukraine. However, there was no enough evidence to support these allegations. To prove his accusations, the former US president sent his lawyer to Ukraine, aiming to influence the Ukrainian corruption investigation. Simultaneously, in a telephone conversation, he pressed President Zelensky to help him with this case. At that time, the United States froze huge funds meant to aid Ukraine.

The president’s political opponents considered the above actions as the abuse of his public office for private gain, which, combined with obstruction of the Congressional investigation, led to the initiation of impeachment proceedings. Interestingly, even prior to the trial, Zelensky publicly denied that Trump put pressure on the Ukrainian government. After a three-week investigation, the Senate ultimately acquitted the president. Only one Republican voted against him being found not guilty.

The second impeachment, which ended on February 13, 2021, was also connected to the election. It was special since the outgoing Donald Trump became the only president to be impeached twice. Moreover, the investigation and the vote happened after Joe Biden took office. January 6 riot at US Capitol building, a reaction to the Democrat’s victory in the election, formed the basis for the trial. During this tense post-election period, the outgoing president gave a fiery speech to the crowd at the Capitol Hill in which he said he would not accept defeat, that the victory had been stolen from him. Additionally, he spoke about suspicious circumstances of Biden’s victory and the doubts surrounding mail-in ballot, which was favored by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. This includes numerous examples of past fraud, for instance, in October 2020 when nearly 50,000 voters received incorrect ballots. Furthermore, in the final hours of voting, Joe Biden surprisingly gained advantage in key battleground states, ultimately winning. As a result of these circumstances, the American public began to question the integrity of the election and Biden’s victory. Consequently, shortly after Trump’s speech was enthusiastically received, there was a riot and armed people entered the US Capitol, leading to the death of five people, including a police officer.

• Read also: US Sanctions Against Nord Stream 2 and the Policy of the European Union

As a result of the above events, the House of Representatives accused Donald Trump of provoking insurrection and “inciting violence against the government of the United States” (these were the words of the indictment). In order for him to be convicted, the consent of at least 17 Republican senators and all 50 Democrats was needed. In the end, the former president was acquitted, although as many as seven Republican senators voted against him.

The second impeachment trial of Donald Trump aimed mainly to show the disapproval of the former president and his undemocratic actions, which, according to his opponents, he took. Some Democrats described these events as a betrayal of the United States and its values, because, according to them, Trump called for an armed seizure of power. Although these opinions are somewhat exaggerated, it is fair to say that the strong words of the former president at that time and place may have contributed to the subsequent tragic events.

Author: Jakub Łyjak

Jakub Łyjak graduated in law at the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań and in economics at the Poznań University of Economics and Business. He also studied Business Administration (Betriebswirtschaftslehre) at the University of Münster (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster). He gained professional experience in legal sector and NGOs such as the Polish Entrepreneurship and Leadership Association and the 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/

February 4 marks the 275^th anniversary of the birth of Tadeusz Kościuszko – an outstanding military commander, patriot, and modern man, a hero to Poles and Americans alike. Tadeusz Kościuszko attached great importance to the notions such as freedom, tolerance, justice, and republicanism. Thomas Jefferson called him “the purest son of liberty.” Kościuszko is universally admired and respected, regardless of political affiliations. For this reason, especially today, we should remember him as a symbol of unity across divisions.

Kościuszko, born in 1746 in Polesie region, came from a middle-class noble family. This entitled him to significant privileges, compared with most of the society of that time. In 1765, he joined the Corps of Cadets at the School of Chivalry in Warsaw, Poland, from which he graduated as a captain. In 1769, Kościuszko was awarded a royal scholarship and moved to Paris. He returned to the homeland five years later. However, he did not join the army – it had been drastically reduced to only 10,000 troops as a consequence of the First Partition of Poland. For this reason, after a while, he travelled to Dresden and then again to Paris, where he learned about the war in America. In 1776, Tadeusz Kościuszko left for North America – his arrival occurred during the American War of Independence.

• Read also: US Sanctions Against Nord Stream 2 and the Policy of the European Union

The Continental army, at that time, was rather weak and suffered from personnel shortages. The young Kościuszko was entrusted with the fortification of Philadelphia as early as in September 1776. His subsequent military actions were largely the reason why General Burgoyne (British) surrendered his army at Saratoga. Thanks to his successes resulting from a great sense and skills related to military engineering, he became a Continental Army engineer in 1780 and a brigadier general in 1783. Tadeusz Kościuszko served in the Army until the end of the American Revolutionary War. As a sign of gratitude for his remarkable achievements during the war, he received the Thanks of Congress.

Upon returning to his homeland, Kościuszko abandoned the military activities and focused on managing his estate. There he reduced peasant’s workload and completely freed the women from serfdom. Only after the proceedings of the Great Sejm (the Four-Year Sejm), which had increased the size of the Polish army, Tadeusz Kościuszko was allowed to join it as a general. For him, it was an excellent opportunity to use military skills he had acquired in America. Later, a part of the nobility and magnates, who strongly opposed the adoption of the Constitution of May 3, 1791, formed the Targowica Confederation and attempted to overturn the law with the support of Russian troops. The forces of the Russian Empress Catherine II attacked Polish troops. Poles were beginning to lose the battle, but the army of Tadeusz Kościuszko won several of them, including the one of Zieleńce. For his leadership during the war, he was awarded the Order of Virtuti Militari.

• Read also: Joe Biden’s Victory and US Relations with Central and Eastern European Countries

After the lost war, Tadeusz Kościuszko left for France where he began preparations to a national uprising. He also started negotiations with local revolutionaries in order to gain support for his idea. On March 24, 1794, Kościuszko announced the general uprising in a speech on Kraków's Main Market Square and assumed the powers of Commander in Chief of the Polish forces, which granted him full civil and military authority. He vowed that he would not to use these powers to oppress any person, but defend the integrity of the borders of Poland, regain the independence of the nation, and strengthen universal liberties. Furthermore, Kościuszko opposed terror, contrary to the French Revolution. He also wanted both the noble and the peasants to join the uprising. Due to lack of forces, Kościuszko ordered a mobilization of peasant troops, which contributed greatly to the victory against the Russian army in the Battle of Racławice on April 4, 1794. This victory boosted the morale of the Poles fighting for freedom and gave them hope that the uprising could be successful. Later on, in May, Kościuszko issued the “Proclamation of Połaniec” that granted personal freedom to the peasants and partially abolished their serfdom. After losing the Battle of Maciejowice on October 10, 1794, Tadeusz Kościuszko was imprisoned and the uprising began to falter. He was taken to St. Petersburg, where he was interrogated. Soon after, in 1795, the Third Partition of Poland took place and was carried out by Prussia, Russia, and Austria. As a result, the Republic of Poland was wiped off the map for 123 years. After the death of Catherine II, Tsar Paul I of Russia released Kościuszko from captivity – he had to pledge a loyalty oath to the Tsar. Consequently, 20,000 captives also regained their freedom along with the former commander of the uprising.

Kościuszko emigrated to the United States again in 1796. There, he renewed numerous political ties with people whom he met during the American Revolutionary War. In 1798, he returned to Europe and settled near Paris where co-founded the Polish Legions, however, he decided not to take command of them. Nevertheless, he remained a spiritual authority for this and local conspiracy groups. Kościuszko was against the Duchy of Warsaw and refused to support Napoleon Bonaparte because he did not trust his intentions towards Poles. After the defeat of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna, whose decisions were unfavorable for Poland, Tadeusz Kościuszko abandoned political life. On October 15, 1817, he passed away in Solothurn, Switzerland, from where he regularly corresponded with Thomas Jefferson. In the following year, his remains were placed at Wawel Cathedral in Cracow, Poland.

Although Tadeusz Kościuszko is known for his military achievements, he engaged in the fight for human rights. In addition to improving the situation of peasants in Poland, Kościuszko fought for the rights of slaves in the America. He discussed the matters of their liberation and redemption with Thomas Jefferson on multiple occasions. Furthermore, Kościuszko stood up for the rights of Native Americans – as a sign of appreciation he received a tomahawk/peace pipe from one of the tribal chiefs. Although the uprising failed, Tadeusz Kościuszko left behind an important political testament, outlining the nation’s path to fight for freedom and reconstruction of the country. Nowadays, there are numerous monuments and bridges commemorating his achievements in the United States. Kosciusko, a town located in Mississippi, was named after him. Additionally, under an executive order signed by former US President Donald Trump, Kościuszko is among 244 notable figures in the history of America to be honored in the National Garden of American Heroes.

Author: Maciej Tyburski

A graduate of Diplomacy and a student of Eastern Studies with a specialization in China and Russia. He gained his professional experience in the NGOs and public sector. His areas of interest include the politics of the Visegrad Group countries, the Three Seas Initiative, geopolitics and foreign languages.

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/

Nord Stream 2 is a Russian energy project intended for Western Europe. It is of strategic importance to Moscow because it strengthens the dominant position of Russia as the leading exporter of natural gas to the European markets. The pipeline is located in such a way that it bypasses the transit countries in Central and Eastern Europe (Poland or Ukraine), i.e., the territories where the main gas pipelines, supplying the rest of the continent, have been located so far. Such a solution would enable Russia to limit the political factor, which includes the unstable relations in the region (for instance, the relations between Russia and Ukraine). As a consequence of previous disruptions in gas supply to Ukraine, this energy source was likewise not delivered to Western Europe.

It seems that the position of the new American administration remains identical to that of Donald Trump in terms of sanctions against EU-Russia energy projects. White House Spokesperson Jen Psaki stated that President Joe Biden believes the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is harmful to Europe. Washington’s position is contrary to that of Berlin, which seeks to finish the project regardless of the position of the US.

Thus, it could be assumed that a number of sanctions against entities involved in the Nord Stream 2 project would be uphold. An example of such could be the pipe-laying barge “Fortuna” and its owner, who were subject to US sanctions for their activity in the construction of this gas pipeline. It seems that a new opening in relations between Germany and America, which was declared by both sides, would focus on matters other than the recognition of energy cooperation between Russia and some EU countries. This is not only due to strictly political but also economic attitudes. Washington is eager to export LNG to European markets, but the Nord Stream 2 project limits the demand for further supplies of this energy source to Europe.

• Read also: USA Under Attack – A Living Case of Cyber Warfare

How Nord Stream 2 divided the EU

The EU countries are divided when it comes to the matter of constructing new Russian gas pipelines. From the perspective of the Baltic States or Poland, such investments are geopolitical threats. This is mainly due to the European market’s dependence on Russian gas supplies. Nord Stream 2 would be capable of supplying 110 bcm (3,885 bcf) of natural gas to Europe annually. For comparison, Poland consumes only 16 – 17 bcm (565-600 bcf) of it every year. Hence, the need to search for alternative sources gas supplies to Europe seems economically unreasonable. Yet, concerns of Warsaw or Vilnius arise from the potential inability to negotiate prices with a supplier, which may become a monopolist that has a proper infrastructure to limit gas supplies to Central Europe without doing so to consumers in Western Europe.

In turn, the European Union, at the supranational level, considers the construction of Nord Stream 2 in the context of the political situation in Russia. As a result of the imprisonment of Alexei Navalny upon his return to Russia in January 2021 and the repression of the opposition in many Russian cities, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling to halt the Nord Stream 2 project. However, this decision was not unequivocally supported by Germany, which continues to back the construction of the gas pipeline. Both Chancellor Merkel and the new CDU chairman Armin Laschet declared that the project is not jeopardized and they do not intend to change their position despite pressure from the United States and some EU countries. In turn, French Minister of State for European Affairs Clément Beaune stated that the Nord Stream 2 project should be put on hold due to Navalny’s arrest and the repression of the opposition in Russia.

• Read also: Joe Biden’s Victory and US Relations with Central and Eastern European Countries

Nevertheless, there seems to be a cross-party consensus in Germany not to link Navalny’s case with the construction of Nord Stream 2. In parliament, representatives of the CDU/CSU and the SPD supported a resolution condemning Navalny’s arrest. However, SPD leader Norbert Walter-Borjans stated that “linking support for Navalny and Nord Stream 2 is absolutely unacceptable.”

Germany is unlikely to withdraw from this project and would be willing to reach a consensus with its European partners and the United States. It can be assumed that the terms of the agreement would concern matters such as increased involvement of Germany in NATO or economic support for Ukraine from Berlin because, politically, Kiev is most likely to be affected if the pipeline is built. A potential solution would be to introduce a political cut-off in the case of Nord Stream 2 should Moscow halt gas supplies to Ukraine.

Summary

The Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline would be an important subject of talks between Berlin and Washington. Given Germany’s determination to finish this project, the improvement of transatlantic relations between Germany and the United States may be more difficult than previously expected. During his election campaign, President Biden had announced that one of the goals, in terms of international politics, is to improve relations with the key countries in the European Union – France and Germany. However, the dispute over Nord Stream 2 pipeline concerns one of the fundamental matters in transatlantic relations, i.e., a common policy toward Putin’s Russia. Washington’s stance on Nord Stream 2 is crucial for the countries located on the so-called NATO’s eastern flank. They are top strategic partners of the US whilst the North Atlantic Alliance is expanding its military infrastructure on their territory. This creates a dilemma for the US administration – establishing strong ties with the largest EU economies (France and Germany) may reduce Washington’s political role on NATO’s eastern flank. On the other hand, continuing projects in Central and Eastern Europe independently from France and Germany may lead to a polarization between the United States and the leading EU states, which in turn could negatively affect transatlantic relations. From Poland’s perspective, the US policy would need to be balanced – to support the key projects in Central and Eastern Europe, such as the Three Seas Initiative, and be capable of solving the dispute with Germany concerning the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. It is crucial, however, to unequivocally dismiss the possibility that this project would be used by Russia as a means of exerting political pressure on the Central and Eastern European states. 

Author: Jakub Lachert

Jakub Lachert is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Political Sciences and International Studies at the University of Warsaw. His research interests include: European Union neighborhood policy, including, in particular, Eastern policy, Eastern Partnership, Western Balkans in the process of integration with the EU.

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/

On Wednesday many private polish media suspended news coverage in protest against a proposed media advertising tax which is a threat to media independence. Instead of articles we can see black front page with consistent message.

The protest is against a planned new advertising tax which is called by independence media a “systemic revenge”. They have no doubt that polish government wants to increase state control and is against journalistic values like freedom of speech.

“We strongly oppose the use of the epidemic as an excuse to introduce another new, exceptionally heavy burden on the media”- we can read in a letter signed by 45 media companies.

• Read also: The Regulation of Artificial Intelligence – What Can America and the World Expect?

Fot. Getty

What is the current situation in the mortgage market in the UK? How Brexit has affected credit capacity of immigrants, including Poles? Here's what you need to know before getting a mortgage!

Following a number of enquiries from our readers regarding the current situation in the UK mortgage market, we have contacted Karol Wołosiak – Mortgage and Protection Adviser from Maxwell Mortgage Services. The company based in Folkestone, Kent, works with the UK's leading lenders and insurance providers, and with more than 50 years of collective experience prides itself on satisfying customers' individual needs. 

Polish Express: Is it more challenging to get a mortgage in the current economic situation in the UK? If so, why?

Karol Wołosiak: Yes, it is more challenging to receive a mortgage offer. The availability of mortgages with less than 15% deposit is at a record low level. In a large number of cases, potential buyers are required to provide more of a deposit to purchase their new home. For many households their income has been reduced, their affordability adversely impacted, and it is much harder to find a property within a reduced budget. New borrowers can receive lower loans because lenders are using more strict criteria for the affordability calculations. The cost of many mortgage products has increased, which has an even more significant impact on reduced household incomes.

PE: What conditions must be met to apply for a residential mortgage:
KW: 1.    Age – customer has to be at least 18 years old when applying for a mortgage; the maximum age is often a retirement age at the end of the mortgage term.
2.    Affordability – we have to provide evidence of earnings and information about outgoings so the lender can decide on what size mortgage is sensible and affordable for you.
3.    Credit history – lenders will ask for your consent to check your credit history, the better credit history (credit score), the higher chances, your mortgage application will be approved.  You can check your credit score and history on various credit reference agencies online.
4.    Deposit – you may have to provide evidence of your deposit to apply for a mortgage. The most popular sources are savings and gifts.
5.    Property – before receiving a mortgage offer, every lender carries out a valuation for mortgage purposes to ensure it is suitable security for the loan.

PE: In the case of obtaining mortgage in the UK, have there been any changes since 1 January 2021? Are there any additional requirements for EU citizens?

KW: Yes, there are some changes for EU citizens. As part of the Brexit transition, EU citizens living in the UK before 31 December 2020 must apply to the EU Settlement Scheme to continue living in the UK after 30 June 2021. Those who apply will receive either ‘Settled’ or ‘Pre-Settled’ status. Every lender is different, but for example, NatWest will treat customers with ‘Pre-Settled’ status aligned to those with ‘Settled’ status. Lenders can ask for a ‘share code’ to verify your status.

PE: If I have a property in Poland, do I have to pay Stamp Duty Land Tax when buying a UK property?

KW: Yes, for those who own a property abroad and buy additional property in the UK, the additional property stamp duty charges will apply. The minimum you will have to pay is 3% of the purchase price.

PE: How do you help clients get a mortgage, what exactly is your support about?

KW: We provide financial advice tailored to our customer needs, considering short- and long-term goals, personal and financial situation. For some people, it can be incredibly confusing searching for the right mortgage, not knowing which deal is best and what bank will actually assist you, however, as a broker with over 70 lenders, we help find the best option and the right mortgage product for our customer needs. We take care of our customers insurance and protection to make sure if the worst happened, our clients stay with the home, not with the debt.

Getting a mortgage today is undoubtedly more difficult than it was a few years ago. But it's not impossible. So if you're thinking of buying a home in the UK and getting a mortgage, ask the experts what you can expect!

YOUR HOME MAY BE REPOSSESSED IF YOU DO NOT KEEP UP REPAYMENTS ON YOUR MORTGAGE

Fot: PixaBay

Poland has seen a decline in gambling revenue for some time, but the tide is turning due to newly regulated products. Recent figures released by the Polish Ministry of Finance show a projected loss in gambling revenue significantly lower than in previous years. Developments in both online betting and land-based gambling look to be reversing the trend. 

In the past, Polish residents who wanted to play online had to open accounts and get their casino bonus from offshore sites. This is now changing due to recent legislation. The change in law, in large part, is contributing to the turning tide of gambling revenue in Poland. 

The figures

H2 Gambling Capital's Gross Gaming Yield (GGY) projections in June of 2020 showed an expected fall of 9,5% from the previous year's figure. The Polish Ministry of Finance noted that this was significantly lower than the 19.6% combined decline projected across all EU markets.

There was a 0.3% increase in total online gambling revenue. This figure results from a 14.2% fall in sports betting being offset by a 26.2% rise in revenue from online lotteries and online casino revenue.

Land-based gambling revenue fell by 13.1%. It comprises an 8.6% fall in lotteries and number games, a 25.4% fall in betting and a 27.3% fall in land-based casino revenue. 

The decline of recent years is a product of global events and Polish government legislation, which is now up to date. 

The products mitigating Poland's fall in gambling revenue

The reason behind Poland's comparatively lower decline in gambling revenues is newly regulated verticals such as land-based arcades and online casinos. For the year to June 11th, 2020, the income from online casinos grew by a massive 96.7%. This was aided substantially by the Total Casino site's growth, which is owned by Totalizator Sportowy. 

Poland's online casino industry's growth helps offset losses from land-based gambling and sports betting, which have been in decline in recent years. Total Casino was launched relatively recently, in December 2018, and is, so far, the only legal online Casino in Poland. 
Due to Poland having its first regionally based online casino, there was a 25% fall in offshore casino sites' revenues. Such stats indicate the popularity of online casino gaming amongst Polish residents. 

In July 2018, the Polish government legalised gaming arcades which contributed a 41.4% revenue increase in the year to June 11th, 2020. In March 2020, there were 239 gaming arcades in operation in Poland. All of these were run by Totalizator Sportowy – the brand behind Total Casino – and 36 of these were open in the first quarter of the year, indicating a rapid growth of the sector since new legislation passed. 

Poland looks set to benefit from a rise in gambling revenues over the next few years with the recently legalised online casino industry increasing in popularity. This will only be boosted by the legislative changes relating to land-based gaming arcades which are also already popular amongst Polish residents. 
 

International measures aimed at developing artificial intelligence (AI) are not only the domain of global corporations. AI-based technologies are also used in the security sector. That is why they are a subject of transatlantic cooperation within the framework of NATO.

In February 2019, President Trump signed an Executive Order (no. 13859) to uphold the American leadership in the field of artificial intelligence. The initiative sets the tone for key areas, such as: R&D investment, guidelines and regulations as well as gaining competencies and engaging in international collaboration to support American research and innovation in artificial intelligence. In late 2020, at an event organized within the framework of the Future Europe Initiative, NATO Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoană rightly noted that “there are considerable benefits of setting up a transatlantic digital community cooperating on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and emerging and disruptive technologies, where NATO can play a key role as a facilitator for innovation and exchange.” It is hard to disagree with these words. While European Member States can rely on EU bodies in terms of assistance, when it comes to transatlantic cooperation NATO seems to be a natural leader in an area that is already affecting security worldwide. Moreover, the US leadership in NATO can significantly help to create international standards on AI. Work in this field is much more advanced in the United States than in other countries. The phrase “Artificial Intelligence” alone appears in 117 acts as of today.

The first thing that comes to mind when considering the topic of AI security are the dangers associated with ominous machines that, commanded by an out-of-control artificial intelligence, threaten humanity. Nothing could be more wrong. Current risks are far from those depicted in popular science-fiction movies. This does not mean that they should be ignored. Already in 2016, during a conference on “The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence,” the issue of LAWS (Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems) was raised. The author of the presentation pointed out that in some hotspots, for instance, the demilitarized zone between North Korea and South Korea (DMZ), such semi-autonomous weapon systems are already deployed. It is worth mentioning that the first prototypes of Samsung SGR-A1 sentry guns, which can track the target without human intervention, were manufactured 15 years ago. Despite the passage of time, transferring the moral problem of pulling the trigger of a rifle on a machine, continues to have its supporters and opponents.

Loss of life as a result of AI’s action is, of course, the greatest of the risks to the individuals. Unfortunately, there are also numerous other ones. The most commonly discussed threat is the prospect of losing one’s job to AI-equipped robots. The blurring of the lines between the digital, physical and biological worlds is already happening nowadays. Robots and digital programs are taking over responsibilities that can be automated using available AI solutions. McKinsey Global Institute published a study which concludes that 375 million people will have to change their current jobs by 2030 due to increasing automation. It is easy to estimate that this stands for less than 14% of the global labor market. The report of Oxford Economics entitled “How robots change the world” suggests that 20 million workers will be fully replaced by robots by 2030. It is no wonder that citizens fear that they may be deprived of jobs. The fact that the market will quite naturally change along with the development of AI does not convince everyone. As in the case of every industrial revolution to date, existing jobs will change, some of them will no longer be needed and new ones will emerge.

• Read also: USA Under Attack – A Living Case of Cyber Warfare

Another potential risk is related to how our data is processed. First of all, most AI models need real data to learn how to work properly. Algorithms that suggest which movie we should watch next do not necessarily pick them on the basis of the recently viewed productions. The AI will surprisingly well select a film that is interesting for us by analyzing our social media activity, geolocation and preferences associated with our online purchases. The use of our data, even anonymized, is a problem within society. Another issue, with far-reaching consequences, is that private data are processed by machines and decisions that affect citizens’ lives are made by algorithms. AI models that were taught with improper input, can pose a considerable threat to those analyzed by them. There were cases of AI designed to detect potential criminals through the analysis of their facial contours and expressions that produced highly skewed results. Numerous predictive models, intended to assist the justice system in issuing sentences and bails, have consistently produced worse results for Black males. This is because of the starting data set. Furthermore, according to a recent study from the University of California, Berkeley, an AI-based mortgage lending system charged Black and Hispanic borrowers higher rates than White people for the same loans. When searching for the best employees on the basis of input data, Amazon’s recruiting tool selected mostly men. The reason was simple – the algorithm was based on data that included only the performance of male employees. There are more similar examples, but they all have one fact in common – bad input data will teach AI to make decisions that are not necessarily error-free.

AI can develop itself safely under two conditions. The first of them is funding. In this respect, EU countries are still lagging behind the United States and slowly catching up with China. In 2016, €3.2 billion was allocated to AI development in the EU, compared to about €12.1 billion in North America and about €6 billion in the Middle Kingdom. In 2019, for the first time in US history, the development of artificial intelligence and autonomous systems was identified as an R&D priority and specified in the administration’s budget. International Data Corporation, a market intelligence firm, predicts that global spending on artificial intelligence will more than double over the next four years, from €41 billion in 2020 to more than €90 billion in 2024.

• Read also: Joe Biden’s Victory and US Relations with Central and Eastern European Countries

The second factor includes appropriate regulations that will guarantee uniform technological development of allied countries and allow for anthropocentric orientation of algorithms, protecting our rights and values. In the USA, the first legal framework in the area of AI was introduced as early as 2011 – the state of Nevada passed a bill allowing for testing autonomous vehicles. Other forerunners of legal requirements can also be found in the guiding principles, approved in December 2019 by a group of government experts on new technologies, working under the auspices of the United Nations. The document, describing 11 standards, addresses Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS), but provides enough details to be applied also in the realm of civilian use of AI. The Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, formulated by the European Commission, are yet another example of already available rules. They include aspects such as: human agency and oversight, technical robustness and safety, privacy and data governance, diversity, non-discrimination, fairness and accountability, among others. Technology companies that did not wait for state institutions to act and formulated their own best practices much earlier should also be praised. Examples include “Asilomar AI Principles,” published in 2017, IBM’s “Trusted AI” or Google’s “Responsible AI Practices.” Currently, Polish legislation does not specify liability for errors of artificial intelligence in any particular way. This will change in the near future because Polish law is already being adapted to the corresponding EU resolution (adopted in October 2020). Transatlantic cooperation on this issue is of great importance because properly developed and implemented regulations are likely to have a positive impact on the common market and the security of AI-based systems.

Advanced AI algorithms are emerging before our eyes. In the coming years, they will significantly change the lives of the majority of people in the world. It is essential to prepare for these changes and to do so with the utmost responsibility. Cooperation at the state level and within organizations such as NATO seems to be one of the pillars of the upcoming transformation.

Author: Wiktor Sędkowski

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/

The victory of Democratic candidate Joe Biden in the battle for the presidency of the United States, caused concerns among the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) about the future cooperation with the new administration. The upcoming presidency will focus on, among others, reversing Donald Trump’s decisions. Will the relations with CEE countries share a similar fate?

The leaders of countries formerly constituting the Eastern Bloc remember how the United States under Obama sacrificed the interests of the region to improve relations with Russia. At the same time, the US was indifferent to warnings about the threat coming from Moscow. Eventually, following Russia’s attack on Ukraine, the presidential administration of that time took certain measures to protect Poland and the Baltic states from a potential Russian aggression. Certainly, however, that response was belated and the previous actions, or lack thereof, severely damaged relations between the Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) and the United States.

Under Donald Trump, the aforesaid relations improved significantly. The former president engaged in cooperation with the CEECs and maintained good relations with Great Britain at the expense of other Western European countries. During Trump’s presidency, the aforementioned cooperation concerned fields such as security, diplomacy, digital communication or economy. This was evident in the growing number of high-level bilateral meetings as well as the relocation of US troops to Poland. It seems that the previous president fully understood that this region will be a significant area of rivalry with China and Russia.

• Read also: USA Under Attack – A Living Case of Cyber Warfare

Undoubtedly, Joe Biden will return to good relations with Western Europe, as was the case under Barack Obama. However, it will be essential for the new president not to waste the achievements of his predecessor concerning CEE. It is worth mentioning that the new US president was a strong advocate of admitting the countries of the region into NATO in the 1990s, whilst during his vice presidency he often participated in negotiations with Central Europe, the Baltic States and the Balkans.

Biden, just like his predecessor, recognizes political interdependencies and the ongoing rivalry between the superpowers. Frequently, he spoke harshly about the authorities in Moscow or Beijing. It seems that he will be much more decisive than Trump in this regard. However, this is due to other reasons. The measures taken by the US to date were more transactional in nature, tied to Washington’s interests. Biden, as a Democrat, evaluates other players in the political arena on the basis of shared liberal values, such as the rule of law, democracy, human rights or ecology. Accordingly, the rivalry with China will be based on countering economic abuses and seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in global maritime transport, aviation or energy sector. Human rights violations committed by Beijing or Moscow as well as authoritarian governance will also play a significant role in this case.

Energy sector will be a central area of rivalry and disputes in the CEE region. Recently, Russia, China and the United States have been trying to increase their influence in this field by signing contracts for the construction of nuclear power plants. A few years ago, the Hungarian government decided to expand one of them with the help of the Russian company Rosatom. Poland has already decided to cooperate with the US in this respect. However, this matter is still being debated in the other countries of the Eastern bloc whilst the outcomes of these negotiations may strengthen the regional influence of one of the superpowers.

Biden’s victory was a cause for concern of the CEECs, resulting in uncertainty over a possible withdrawal from earlier arrangements by the new president. This is particularly significant in the case of Poland, which signed an agreement with the US last October. It concerns the development of a nuclear program associated with the construction of six nuclear power plants between 2033 and 2043. Nevertheless, Republicans and Democrats are in favor of continuing the current policy. It is also backed by Biden’s approach to environmental issues, i.e., moving away from coal in order to fight global warming.

• Read also: The Problematic Relations Between Hungary and the European Union

Apart from the energy sector and nuclear power plants, one of the main topics is the Nord Stream 2 project. The US perceives it as a serious geopolitical risk, which increases Europe’s dependence on Russia as well as weakens European security and stability. The completion of the project will sideline the current transit countries in Eastern Europe as well as increase the political and energy dependence of countries in the region on Russia and Germany. Joe Biden has been even more critical in this regard than Donald Trump and called for further sanctions that will prevent the pipeline from being completed. There is a clear cross-party consensus in the US on this matter as well.

Throughout Donald Trump’s presidency, the United States significantly supported the Three Seas Initiative, which aims to enhance the transport, energy and digital infrastructure among 12 countries in the area between the Adriatic, Baltic and Black Seas. The former president saw the project as a potential alternative to China’s New Silk Road and Russian efforts to destabilize the region. The project was backed by Republicans and Democrats – consequently, a bipartisan resolution supporting the Three Seas Initiative was adopted in November 2020.

On the basis of the aforementioned matters, it could be concluded that concerns about a possible departure from the actions of Donald Trump by the new administration are redundant. Additionally, Biden is critical of Russia and values NATO, so his presidency will have a positive impact on Poland’s security. Authorities in Warsaw underline that Poland is the largest pro-American country in the entire EU after Brexit took place. However, Biden’s perception of political partners, based on the shared values, may be a cause for concern because, according to some, they are violated in Poland or Hungary. Certainly, this matter will be discussed with the new administration often than before. This could be inferred, for instance, from the Biden’s statement made during his electoral campaign, when he caused confusion among the Polish authorities after mentioning Poland and Belarus (where Alexander Lukashenko brutally cracked down on the opposition after winning the potentially rigged election last year) in the same sentence and referring to the “rise of totalitarian regimes in the world.”

Although the aforementioned issue may create tensions between Washington and Warsaw or Budapest, it seems that Joe Biden will continue the policy of the former president in terms of relations with the CEECs. Although certain matters will be handled differently, we should not expect any significant changes in this regard. To sum up, Joe Biden will probably continue the military cooperation with the countries of the region, maintain the support for the Three Seas Initiative as well as work towards extending influence over the nuclear energy sector and halting the construction of Nord Stream 2. However, relations with the US, especially the bilateral ones, will heavily depend on the compatibility of liberal and democratic values.

Author: Jakub Łyjak

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/

The United States is currently undergoing a significant cyberattack. Among over 18,000 potentially affected users, many have been confirmed to operate within the networks of federal agencies, including the State Department, Treasury, Department of Homeland Security, Pentagon, and Department of Energy. The malware discovered in December has been present in American cyberspace since March 2020, which might have given the invaders enough undercover time to access classified information across both the public and private sectors.

In early December, a California-based cybersecurity corporation, FireEye, noticed that it had undergone a cyberattack. The company tracked the malware’s origin back to a March update of the Orion software. The operating system, developed and distributed by SolarWinds, is used globally by hundreds of thousands of institutions and businesses, including most of the Financial Times Global 500 companies, to detect vulnerabilities in their networks. Therefore, it is inherent to the system to have an ultimate overview of all the processes within a network, both internal and externally, making it a valuable target of cyberattacks. 

• Read also: The Problematic Relations Between Hungary and the European Union

Once the scale of the breach has been realized, Kevin Thompson, the CEO of Solar Winds, quickly announced the corporation was working closely with FireEye, FBI, and the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to investigate the attack, counteract further infection of American networks and, potentially, theft of federal secrets. Furthermore, together with the Director of National Intelligence, the three institutions formed a Cyber Unified Coordination Group, whose sole purpose is to coordinate a holistic response to the incident. CISA has also remained in regular contact with the public and private sector to help them counteract the breach of their data by offering technical assistance and advising best-practices that should strengthen their cyber safety. Although the actions undertaken seem impressively coordinated, one should remember that the information stolen will remain in the hands of the aggressor. In an alert by CISA we can read that “removing [the] threat actor from compromised environments will be highly complex and challenging for organisations.” We also learn that the invader employed “tactics, techniques, and procedures that have not yet been discovered.” It is not, however, the strategy of infiltration used that was not expected; known as the “supply-chain” method, the tactic involves accessing a target’s information via corrupting its reliable, trusted third-party (the Orion software in this case). On the contrary, the attackers gained a crucial strategic advantage by their judicious, silent approach. They did not hurry to extract information as soon as possible – instead, they acknowledged that a more careful and restrained approach ‘today’ will enable better results ‘tomorrow’. The malware methodically analyses the value of each client it reaches with respect to the strength of their credentials, corrupting more and more connections. It meticulously builds a network until a top-priority user with enough accreditations within their organisation’s systems is reached. Then, it extracts classified information without raising any concerns about its legitimacy. Thanks to this method, the attackers managed to prevail in the foreign systems for nine months without the victim even noticing their presence.

This incredibly clever tactic was quickly assumed by American authorities to be a product of a nation-state rather than an independent group of hackers. The complex military-like design and its perfect execution must have required large working capacity and resources. Yet while officials handling the crisis did not point in the direction of any specific country, others did. Experts quickly identified the tactical similarities between the ongoing breach and the one used by Russian military hackers in 2017 against Western companies engaged in business in Ukraine. The virus called NotPetya has been described as “the most damaging cyberattack to date” – whether it will retain this notorious title remains to be seen. Only on January 5 did the U.S. officially associate the breach to the Kremlin in a joint statement by the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency, calling it “likely Russian in origin.” While this accusation, perhaps backed by evidence, is still uncertain and rather diplomatic in its nature, some politicians made bolder claims as early as in December. Those of Mike Pompeo, the State Secretary, and William Barr, the then-Attorney General, proved to coincide with the recent findings, unlike those made by Trump. The former president took a surprising approach to the problem which his administration assessed to be of a “grave risk” to government networks as well as private companies. Not only did Trump never brought the cyberattack to the public debate, but he also accused the media of inflating the severity of the breach. Additionally, he mistakenly put the blame on China.

• Read also: A Summary of the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict

According to Chris Painter, the coordinator of State Department’s cyber policy during Obama’s presidency, America’s cybersecurity was not one of Trump’s priorities. On the contrary, the national security team of Biden’s administration has already announced that it will be less tolerant to Russia’s aggression in the cyber sphere. We should soon find out if this means allocating more resources to the research, development, and maintenance of the protective infrastructure, or adopting a stricter diplomatic and economic response on the federal level. However, since cyber operations share more common ground with espionage than with covert military actions, one can never be entirely sure from where an attack comes nor have uncompromised evidence to prove their accusations. This fact largely restricts the scope of retaliatory mechanisms and makes them more vulnerable to condemnation on the international forum or, worse, the initial aggressor themselves – thus giving room for an escalating tit-for-tat.

For now, however, the scale of harm has not yet been evaluated and is unlikely to ever be – just like it was with the impact of George Blake’s betrayal, who spied for the Soviet Union within the British government during the Cold War era. Indeed, the ongoing breach is on many levels similar to traditional espionage. Russian spies are trained for years before being “planted” in the region of interest – so must have been the process of designing and developing the malware. Their main objective in the first months on the enemy’s terrain is to blend in – so did it remain silent for months, literally. This not-yet-named, though certainly worthy of a ‘title’, virus is a masterpiece of intelligence – in both meanings of the word. What the West must now do is to humbly learn the lesson. Moscow is becoming increasingly confident and efficient in their cyber-operations. From trying to hack into the White House and the Democratic Party systems in 2014 and 2015, to meddling in the 2016 American elections, to trying to steal the secrets of the work on coronavirus vaccine from the US, Canada, and the UK in 2020, the reach of Russian hybrid attacks has been truly global and increasingly successful – with the most recent virus present also beyond America in the European Parliament, UK central government and National Health Service, or NATO Support Agency to name just a few. Worryingly, these cases have received disproportionately little coverage from the media.

To prevent a larger-scale supply-chain attack in the future, NATO must ensure to work collaboratively with its members to improve its cyber-resistance. Moreover, it should nudge the less technologically-developed of its states to catch up with the work. Accessing classified information in one country’s government systems may disclose the secrets of other states, too, thus enabling the build-up of an infected network, but this time across federal units. We are yet again reminded that only through unity and mutual cooperation can we protect our liberties and democratic values.

Author: Jędrzej Duszyński

Alumnus of Worth School, a British Independent School, where he pursued Sixth Form education on a full academic scholarship. Alumnus and Volunteer at United World Colleges Poland. He gained professional experience during a research internship at Institute of Economic Affairs and a consulting work placement at Oliver Wyman, London. He currently works as a Project Assistant at the Warsaw Institute think tank.

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/

A deterioration in relations between Hungary and the European Union could be observed over the last decade. The key subjects of this dispute are the reforms introduced by the successive governments of Viktor Orbán. The tense situation between the Hungarian government and the EU institutions almost led to a veto on the budget and the Reconstruction Fund last December. Ultimately, Viktor Orbán reached an agreement with top EU officials, which was presented by some of the media outlets as a victory for Hungary at the EU level.

To begin with, it is worth recalling the origins of the dispute between the European Union and the government of Viktor Orbán – currently the third one since the Fidesz-KDNP coalition took power in 2010. The initial objections of the European Commission (EC) to Hungary’s domestic policy concerned mainly the new constitution, adopted in 2011, and internal reforms that changed the prerogatives of the Constitutional Court, the powers of the president as well as the scope of actions which require a two-thirds majority in the parliament, such as legislation related to the central bank. At the time, the European Commission expressed its concern about the reforms in light of EU rules and standards, and announced that it would take all possible measures, if necessary. Hungary’s opposition to the mandatory relocation of refugees during the migration crisis or the allegations of the European Union regarding the Hungarian media market likewise remained contentious issues in the following years.

In June 2018, as a result of the deliberations of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE), the initiation of the procedure under Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union was recommended. This means that the Council of the EU found a serious breach of the values of the Union by a Member State. Possible sanctions under Article 7 may include, for instance, suspension of voting rights at meetings of the European Council and the Council of the EU. The decision was motivated by the serious risk of rule of law violations in Hungary.

• Read also: The Diplomatic Crisis in the Persian Gulf. Causes, Development, Resolution?

The strategy of the fight against COVID-19 has repeatedly caused divisions between Hungary and the European Union. Already at the beginning of July 2020, Prime Minister Orbán announced that Hungary would not comply with the EU recommendations to open its borders to certain non-EU countries. Only residents of Serbia were allowed to enter Hungary, probably due to the fact that a significant Hungarian minority resides there. The same was true in late August and early September, when the European Commission stipulated that Member States should jointly set criteria concerning COVID-19 threat assessment in order to avoid a second wave of uncoordinated actions within the EU. Furthermore, the EC called for treating the neighboring countries with understanding. However, due to the record number of infections, Hungary closed its borders to tourists on September 1, 2020, whilst foreigners had to present a legitimate reason in order to be allowed in.

Despite the fact that it has been several years since the beginning of the migration crisis, the issues related to it are still relevant, which is particularly evident in the case of Hungary and the EU. The case concerns particularly the aftermath of a bill adopted in Hungary in 2017. According to it, in the event of high migrant influx, the asylum seekers have to personally submit applications in the transit zone and wait there for their resolution. Consequently, in May 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that locating asylum seekers in the Roeszke transit zone without having their case heard by a court is against EU law. In September of the same year, the European Commission proposed the so-called migration pact, which gives Member States a choice between relocating or deporting a certain number of refugees. This proposal was met with criticism from Prime Minister Orbán who said that the Commission’s initial approach on migration has not changed because the EC still wants to administer migration instead of stopping the influx of refugees. Nevertheless, the Hungarian Prime Minister added that the proposal includes some good ideas, such as those concerning the deportation of people who are not eligible for asylum in the EU.

Among the current Hungary-EU relations, one of the most significant events of 2020 were the negotiations of the next long-term EU budget 2021-2027 (MFF) and the European Reconstruction Fund – a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The EU budget requires the agreement of all Member States – in the absence of such an approval by the end of the year, a one-year provisional budget will be in force next year. In view of the new bill linking the budget to the rule of law, Poland and Hungary have announced that in such circumstances they will have to veto the budget and the Reconstruction Fund, arguing that the aforementioned mechanism is an attempt to punish the two countries for having different opinions on a number of issues. These include, among others, matters related to the migrant crisis and its aftermath. Moreover, representatives of both countries underlined that the new mechanism is incompatible with EU law and de facto undermines the rule of law instead of reinforcing it. Then, Prime Ministers Mateusz Morawiecki and Viktor Orbán began to look for a compromise solution to the contentious issue. Eventually, the EU leaders reached an agreement whilst doubts about the disputed bill were to be resolved by the concluded compromise on clarifying the principles of operation of such a mechanism. The governments of Poland and Hungary were assured that the mechanism’s provisions would only apply in the case of gross misuse of funds and would not apply to individual national regulations.

• Read also: Energy Transformation in the Baltic Rim

In the following years, we are likely to continue seeing strained relations between Hungary and the European Union. Despite the alleged success in Brussels and the lack of a veto, it is worth noting that the “money for the rule of law” mechanism ultimately remained in the budget. In turn, the veto could have resulted in an establishment of a separate reconstruction fund excluding Poland and Hungary. Currently, the attitude of Hungary towards the European Union is rather negatively assessed by the majority of the Member States. Additionally, there are concerns that the Fidesz party might be excluded from the largest faction in the European parliament – the European People’s Party (EPP). Hungary continues to be an active state on the EU forum by, among others, endorsing the projects of the Visegrád Group, supporting the Middle East policy of the United States and recently also calling the EC for greater EU support for the Eastern Partnership initiative in terms of access to COVID-19 vaccines for the Eastern European partners countries. In 2021, the resettlement of migrants will be a priority of the Hungary-EU agenda since Portugal, which is taking over the presidency, plans to propose an agreement concerning the forced relocation of migrants among EU Members.

Author: Maciej Tyburski

A graduate of Diplomacy and a student of Eastern Studies with a specialization in China and Russia. He gained his professional experience in the NGOs and public sector. His areas of interest include the politics of the Visegrad Group countries, the Three Seas Initiative, geopolitics and foreign languages.

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/